Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barking Corporation Bill [Lords],

Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords],

Canterbury Extension Bill [Lords],

Rhondda Passenger Transport Bill [Lords],

Wimbledon Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Chepping Wycombe) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Ely, Holland, and Norfolk) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Luton Water) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Mid-Glamorgan Water Board) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Somerset Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Maidstone and Stockton-on-Tees) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wath, Swinton, and District Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.

Address for
Return of Licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vict., c. 77, showing the number of experiments performed under the Act during 1932, and the registered places at which such experiments may be performed (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 108, of Session 1931–32)."—[Mr. Hacking].

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the result up to date of his attempts to co-ordinate rates of transitional payments throughout the country; and, in this connection, if he is aware that the scale of transitional payments being administered by the Bilston Public Assistance Committee, which covers the areas of Short Heath, Wednesfield, and Willenhall, is lower than the published scale of the adjoining county borough of Wolverhampton; and if he will take any steps to raise the former rates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Subject to the various statutory directions, the scales and rules adopted by local authorities for guidance are within the control of the authorities themselves, and my right hon. Friend cannot issue directions to them on the matter. My information is, however, that authorities are recognising in increasing measure the importance of eliminating unjustifiable discrepancies in the treatment of comparable classes of cases.

Mr. MANDER: Am I to understand that the Bilston Committee will be quite in order in exercising their discretion to raise their standard?

Mr. HUDSON: It is not my duty to pass any comment upon that.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that they can exercise their discretion in that direction if they think fit?

Mr. HUDSON: That would be a matter for the Minister of Health.

INSURANCE BILL.

Mr. LAWSON: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to introduce the new Unemployment Insurance Bill before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. It is hoped that the Bill will be printed in the autumn and proceeded with forthwith.

Mr. LAWSON: As this is a very important Bill, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it will be in the bands of Members in time for perusal before the Debate takes place?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, it will be in the hands of Members in adequate time to enable them to consider it.

MINERS, WARWICKSHIRE.

Mr. NORTH: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed miners in Warwickshire at the latest available date?

Mr. HUDSON: At 26th June, 1933, the number of insured persons in the coal mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in Warwickshire was 1,602, of whom 1,240 were wholly unemployed and 362 were temporarily stopped.

Mr. NORTH: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the recent activities of the Coal Reorganisation Committee of Warwickshire are likely to have any effect in increasing or decreasing the number of miners employed?

Mr. HUDSON: That is a matter for the Minister of Mines. The figures that I have read out show a decrease compared with last year.

TOTALISATOR EMPLOYÉS.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 4 and 5.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he has any information as to the number of totalisator employés on greyhound tracks who have lost their employment as a result of the legal decision as to their illegality:
(2) if he has any information as to how many persons previously employed in totalisator manufacture, have lost their employment since tile decision that the operation of the totalisator on greyhound tracks was illegal?

Mr. HUDSON: I regret that there are no statistics on either of these points.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As a large number of my constituents are affected, I wonder if my hon. Friend would instruct his officers in the district concerned to make inquiries from the greyhound tracks and from the manufacturers of apparatus in order to obtain this rather important information.

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid it is impossible, because I gather that the manufacturers of totalisators make totalisators also for horse-racing.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Could the hon. Gentleman ask with regard to greyhound tracks, which are easily defined?

Mr. HUDSON: No, that would be impossible, because many of these people are part-time employés who work on the tracks after their ordinary day's work.

PEA-PICKING.

Mr. LOGAN: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men have been sent from Ormskirk Employment Exchange to various farms in the district to be engaged on pea-picking; that, in addition to having to travel six to 10 miles at their own expense, the men have been receiving for this work wages amounting to 9d. per hamper of 40 lbs.; that in some cases it took 2¾ hours to fill a hamper, and that in another case it took a man half a day to earn 1s.; that some of the men have been denied unemployment benefit for refusing to continue at such low wages; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter?

Mr. HUDSON: I am having inquiries made and will write to the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. LOGAN: Is not the Minister aware that it is illegal for such a decision to be given in regard to the rate of pay?

Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend is not concerned with the rate of pay. The question whether a man refuses
reasonable employment is one for the court of referees, over which my right hon. Friend has no control.

Mr. LOGAN: Are not rates of pay such as those mentioned in the question justification for refusal?

Mr. HUDSON: I am not prepared to accept the statements in the question until I have made inquiries, but, even if the facts were as stated, it is a matter for the court of referees and not for any official of the Department.

STATISTICS.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state in a single figure the approximate number of persons who are no longer included in the unemployment returns since August, 1931, owing to the operation of the Anomalies Act and any other administrative changes?

Mr. HUDSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 27th October, 1932, to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Aberdare (M r. G. Hall). For the reasons then given I regret that it is not possible to make any estimate in respect of the present time.

Mr. ADAMS: Is it not true to say that the recent employment figures represent a remarkable and substantial improvement in the position?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, that is undoubtedly so.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 6.
(forDr. JOHN WILLIAMS) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of insured persons over 58 years of age who have been continuously unemployed for more than 12 months in the Wales Division and in Great Britain?

Mr. HUDSON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: 7 and 8.
(for Dr. J. WILLIAMS) asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will issue a report showing the number of employed and unemployed persons whose cards are returned to Kew for this year; and whether it will be possible to ascertain the proportion of men, women and young persons included in the total;
(2) the number of employment cards sent to Kew in the course of the year and give the record of employment of each individual insured person; and whether the Returns showing the totals employed and unemployed as ascertained by the Department from these sources are published and where they are obtainable?

Mr. HUDSON: The unemployment books, numbering about 12,500,000, sent to the Claims and Record Office, Kew, at the expiration of their year of currency are the basis of the detailed statistics of the number of insured persons, which give separate figures for males and females, boys and girls and are also analysed in various other ways. For a number of reasons, the books at Kew are not a suitable basis for obtaining statistics of unemployment; these statistics are compiled once a month from a count of books lodged at Employment Exchanges, and of uninsured persons registered at these Offices. All these statistics are to be found in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Mr. BROWN): 11.
(for Mr. D. GRENFELL asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons classified as coal-mining employés in the Wales division in June, 1922, June, 1932 and June, 1933, with the percentage of registered unemployed in that category on the same dates?

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Insured persons in the coalmining industry classification in the Wales division.

—
Estimated Numbers insured at July.
Percentage of Insured Persons recorded as unemployed towards end of June.


1923*
…
282,400
2.3


1932
…
219,070
45.0


1933
…
†
40.2


*Owing to a change in the basis of industry classification comparable figures are not available for any year earlier than 1923.


†Not yet available.

NOTE.—The figures for 1923 relate to persons aged 16 and over. For 1932 and 1933 they relate to persons aged 16 to 64.

Mr. C. BROWN: 9.
(for Mr. D. GRENFELL) asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons employed in the coal mining, engineering, shipbuilding, iron and steel manufacture, and the corresponding number of registered unemployed for this group in June, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933?

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, cir-

Estimated numbers insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and numbers recorded as unemployed in Great Britain in the under-mentioned industry classifications.


Industry Classification
Year.
Estimated numbers insured (employed and unemployed) at beginning of July.
Number recorded unemployed at end of June


Coalmining
1929
1,074,610
204,012



1930
1,069,370
255,707



1931
1,046,750
378,633



1932
1,044,830
425,004



1933
*
384,589


Engineering†
1929
988,200
76,783



1930
1,001,420
143,517



1931
990,040
258,145



1932
962,570
264,361



1933
*
215,433


Shipbuilding and ship repairing
1929
192,480
42,824



1930
192,310
60,013



1931
183,790
103,562



1932
171,440
106,493



1933
*
96,445


Iron and steel (including pig iron) manufacture.
1929
200,770
36,752



1930
202,670
58,083



1931
188,800
89,095



1932
185,888
88,488



1933
*
70,316


* Not yet available.


† Including general, electrical, marine and constructional engineering, and the construction and repair of motor vehicles, cycles and aircraft.

HEALTH INSURANCE (BENEFITS).

Mr. LAWSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that large numbers of unemployed who are subject to the operation of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Act, 1932, are anxious as to what their position is under that Act, and that approved societies are not making the position plain; and whether he will take steps to inform those concerned, through the Labour Exchanges in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, what steps can be taken to ensure the continuance of benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts?

culate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT,

Lieut.-Colonel POWELL: Would my hon. Friend include the figures for 1929?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir, if my hon. Friend has no objection.

Following is the statement:

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): A notice with regard to arrears due to unemployment is being sent to every insured person affected, and posters informing insured persons of their right to redeem arrears without waiting until they receive this notice are displayed in every Employment Exchange. Any insured persons who are unable to secure employment and do not exercise their right to continue as voluntary contributors will be informed by their societies of the date of cessation of their insurance.

Mr. LAWSON: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer that
the National Health Insurance contributors are to receive notice personally, may I ask if the notice is to be in simple terms, because there is confusion in the minds of these people as to their position in the matter?

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman making clear on the notice by what method they can safeguard their future rights?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. Of course in drafting these notices the purpose which they have to serve is being very carefully borne in mind, and since the purpose in this case is to explain to un-

Estimated total population and estimated number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain, and England, Scotland and Wales respectively.


—
June, 1930.
June, 1931.
June, 1932.


Estimated total population.
Estimated numbers insured.
Proportion of Col. 3 to Col. 2.
Estimated total population.
Estimated numbers insured.
Proportion of Col. 6 to Col. 5.
Estimated total population.
Estimated numbers insured.
Proportion of Col. 9 to Col. 8.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10





Per cent.


Per cent.


Per cent.


Great Britain
44,634,000
12,138,000
27.2
44,831,000
12,500,000
27.9
45,081,000
12,543,000
27.8


England (excluding Monmouthshire).
37,177,130
10,241,370
27.5
37,394,680
10,547,380
28.2
37,619,160
10,587,670
28.1


Scotland
4,828,000
1,304,110
27.0
4,843,000
1,346,500
27.8
4,880,000
1,336,560
27.4


Wales (including Monmouthshire)
2,628,870
592,520
22.5
2,593,320
606,120
23.4
2,581,840
618,770
24.0


Figures for 1933 are not yet available.

COTTON MILLS (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. TINKER: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that boys and girls are starting work in cotton mills in Lancashire and have to work a period without receiving wages; and will he cause inquiries to be made to find out to what extent this is being done?

Mr. HUDSON: I am having inquiry made, but, if the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind, perhaps he will let me have them.

HOLIDAY CAMPS.

Lieut.-Colonel J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the advisability of introducing legislation for the regulation of holiday
educated people exactly what their rights are, I am confident that these notices will be adapted for that purpose.

INSURED PERSONS.

Mr. C. BROWN: 10.
(for Mr. D. GRENFELL) asked the Minister of Labour the ratio of insured persons to the total population of Great Britain, and of England, Scotland, and Wales. respectively, for June, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933?

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

camps, especially semi-permanent and permanent ones?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I am advised that offences against public order and decency can be dealt with under the existing law and by means of by-laws, and there is at present no evidence in my possession to indicate any need for further general legislation on this subject.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the advisability of introducing legislation for the sanitation of holiday camps, especially semi-permanent ones?

Sir H. YOUNG: There are powers in the existing law for dealing with the sanitation of encampments of this kind,
and I am considering, in consultation with the Associations of Local Authorities, whether further powers are required.

PRISONS.

Mr. GOLDIE: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused in the administration of justice in the counties of Cumberland and Westmorland, and the northern parts of the county palatine of Lancaster, by the closure of the gaols at Carlisle, Lancaster and Preston, and of the hardship inflicted, particularly on persons on remand who are compelled to travel long distances at further expense from the gaols at Durham, Liverpool and Manchester; and whether he will consider the reopening of the prison at Preston?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Lancaster and Carlisle prisons were closed more than 10 years ago and Preston prison in April, 1931. I am not aware that any inconvenience or hardship has resulted which would justify the expense of reopening this prison in present circumstances.

Mr. GOLDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same difficulty is being experienced in North Wales, and prisoners on remand have to travel to and from the gaol at Liverpool to attend police court proceedings

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it would he quite impossible to have prisons in so many places as to prevent all possibility of inconvenience.

MALTA (CABARET DANCING).

Mr. FLEMING: 19.
asked the Home Secretary how many English girls under 18 years of age have taken up cabaret dancing in Malta during the last 12 months; how many of these girls have returned to England; and if he has had any complaints concerning the conditions of service there?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In reply to the first part of the question, no English girl between the ages of 14 and 18 may be taken abroad for the purpose of performing for profit unless a licence has been issued by a Magistrate at Bow Street. During the last 12 months no English girls have gone abroad under a licence to perform in Malta. The remaining parts of the question do not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 21.
asked the Home Secretary what colliery company or combination of colliery companies have submitted schemes for insurance of workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act; how many of them are satisfactory to him; and what districts or counties have failed to submit any scheme?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member seems to be under some misunderstanding as to the procedure which has been adopted in this matter. I did not ask each district to submit a scheme, but the Mining Association took up with each district the question of improving the existing arrangements for mutual insurance, and, on the information now obtained, they appear to be either satisfactory or in an advanced stage towards being put on a satisfactory basis, except in Lancashire. The unfortunate position in Lancashire is quite exceptional. Negotiations there for the scheme referred to in the reply given to the hon. Member on 6th April broke down, and the present position is indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member for St. Helens last Monday. I understand that some large groups in different areas contemplate setting aside reserves under Trustees, but the drafting of the Model Trust Deed previously mentioned has not been finally settled.

Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman riot aware that he gave a promise that, unless some definite improvement was made, they would be threatened with legal proceedings? In Lancashire they are making no definite progress at all. I am hoping that he will take a step forward and tell them that unless they do something the law will go forward.

Sir J. GILMOUR: They have been recently seen, and it has been frankly explained to them that they must make progress. Indeed, I understand that in one part of Lancashire progress, if not already made, is in process of being made, and I hope that it will be proceeded with.

Mr. TINKER: In the event of their not complying, will the right hon. Gentleman then do something with them?

Sir J. GILMOUR: When I have all the facts before me and have had time to consider them, I will see what can be done.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. BATEY: 54.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners employed in Great Britain for the weeks ending 1st July, 1933, 3rd June, 1933, and 2nd July, 1932?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The number of wage-earners employed at coal mines in Great Britain during the week ended 1st July, 1933, was 765,000 as compared with 768,100 during the week ended 3rd June, 1933, and 799,400 during the week ended 2nd July, 1932.

Mr. BATEY: 55.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners employed in county Durham for the weeks ended 1st July, 1933, 3rd June, 1933, and 2nd July, 1932?

Mr. BROWN: The number of wage-earners employed at coal mines in the county of Durham during the week ended 1st July, 1933, was 98,600, as compared with 99,300 during the week ended 3rd June, 1933, and 100,300 during the week ended 2nd July, 1932.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the Minister for Labour stated that there was a decrease in the number of miners unemployed. As that statement is now contradicted, will he send the figures to the Minister of Labour?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is trying to compare two sets of figures which cannot be compared. The figures I have quoted refer to the number of workmen actually on the colliery books for the period mentioned. There can be no comparison with the unemployment figures given by the Minister of Labour; they are not on a comparable basis. It must also be remembered that wholly unemployed and temporarily stopped workers show different variations inside the same totals from day to day, and a number of those who work part of the week are in both sets of figures.

Mr. BATEY: How can there be fewer miners employed compared with a month or a year ago and yet be a decrease in the amount of unemployment

Mr. BROWN: I have explained the reason for these variations.

Mr. LAWSON: Are not the figures given by the hon. Member the real figures

Mr. BROWN: Both figures are real.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: May I ask if these figures cover 100 per cent. of the numbers employed?

EXPORTS (BELGIUM).

Mr. LAWSON: 56.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the complaints made to him by certain coal-owners about the restriction of coal exports from this country to Belgium that these are drastically reducing our exports to Belgium, he will state what steps he proposes to take about this matter?

Mr. E. BROWN: As has been explained on previous occasions, a quota system for imports of coal and briquettes into Belgium from all countries was introduced in October, 1931, on the basis of a uniform percentage of imports in 1930. This basis was altered, in February, 1932, to the first six months of 1931, with the result that imports from the United Kingdom were reduced, both absolutely and relatively, to a greater extent than imports from other countries. Accordingly, diplomatic representations against the change in the basis of the quota were addressed to the Belgian Government in March, 1932, and again in September, 1932.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Member aware that our exports to Belgium have been reduced in the last three years by 4,000,000 tons and look like being still further reduced? Is he also aware that there is an opinion that there is a deliberate reduction of our quota as far as Belgium is concerned with a view to making some trade agreement in the future?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot discuss a matter of opinion, but my hon. Friend will understand that representations have twice been made on this point.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Has any satisfactory reply been received by the Government from the Belgian Government?

Mr. BROWN: At the moment, no.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member has said that the last representations were
made in September of last year. Is he not aware that the process of reduction has been going on with increasing force during the whole of the past year?

Mr. BROWN: I am aware of that, but at the moment I do not think that any useful purpose will be served by further representations being made to the Belgian Government. The matter has not been lost sight of, and any suitable opportunity will be taken for raising it again.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

AMALGAMATION OF FORCES.

Mr. JOEL: 22.
asked the Home Secretary if he intends to take any action and, if so, of what nature giving effect to the findings of the recent Departmental Inquiry into police force amalgamation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I informed the House during the recent Debate on the Police Vote, I hope that there may be an opportunity in the autumn to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject.

MOTOR PATROL DUTIES.

Captain LOCKWOOD: 25.
asked the Home Secretary what is the number of traffic police now engaged on special traffic duties; whether they are drawn from the existing police force; what special qualifications, if any, are required for employment on those duties; and whether they receive any and, if so, what extra pay?

Sir J. GILMOUR: According to the latest available returns, obtained a year ago, 1,242 police were wholly employed and 317 partially employed in the summer, and 1,176 wholly and 335 partially employed in the winter on motor patrol duties in England and Wales. The men have been drawn from the existing personnel of the forces: they are given appropriate training and are not retained on these duties unless they prove suitable. They do not receive any extra pay.

Sir W. BRASS: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether these officers remain for any length of time after they have gained experience of London traffic, or are they moved somewhere else?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend had better put that question upon the Paper.

BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS (STREET PROCESSION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a procession of some 5,000 black shirts processed in military order through main London streets on Sunday, and that the traffic was held up for them to pass; whether this was done by the orders of the Home Office or on whose instructions; and whether, in the interests of traffic, this will not be allowed again?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that about 600 members of the British Union of Fascists took part in a procession through certain streets in the West End of London between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. last Sunday evening. The Commissioner was informed in advance of the proposed route, but, in view of the small number of persons taking part and since the traffic at that time on a Sunday evening is generally light, he decided that there was no reason to object to the proposed route. All processions cause a greater or less degree of dislocation of traffic, but in this case the inconvenience did not appear to be likely to be serious. As the House was informed in reply to a question on the 15th February last, the Government are anxious to maintain, to the utmost extent compatible with the general interest, the right of holding public processions provided they are orderly and well-behaved.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The number, of course, is a matter of estimate, but the fact is that I and the traffic in Trafalgar Square were held up for six and a-half minutes; and may I ask whether this is to continue, and why this particular brand of lunatics are allowed to take this advantage?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TAXIMETER CAB FARES.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GEORGE HARVEY: 26. To ask the Home Secretary whether, in view of his letter to the taximeter cab trade representatives of the 6th
February last, wherein he said he was satisfied that an increase on the present fare was justified, he can now define the present position of these negotiations?

Mr. HARVEY: This question was satisfactorily answered yesterday, but, in view of the fact that I have taken great interest in this particular matter, may I have an official copy of the reply?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes. I will see to that.

MOTOR INSURANCE BUSINESS (DEPOSIT).

Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the deposit of £15,000 by insurance companies referred to in Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is adequate; and if he will consider the advisability of taking steps to increase it and of obtaining a close scrutiny of the accounts of insurance companies if and when expedient?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The purpose of the statutory deposits required from insurance companies is to provide some measure of check on companies entering on this class of business without resources. The question whether the deposit of £15,000 fixed in 1930 for motor insurance business is adequate will be considered when amending legislation is under consideration. As regards the latter part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend of the special powers recently conferred on the Board of Trade by the Assurance Companies (Winding-Up) Act, 1933, which will necessitate a close scrutiny of the statutory accounts of motor insurance companies.

TRAFFIC CONTROL (CROSS ROADS).

Captain LOCKWOOD: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of serious accidents caused by drivers of motor vehicles and others coming out of side roads into main roads without due regard to the safety of those using the main roads; and whether he will take further steps to ensure protection to the users of main roads?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am aware that many serious accidents occur at cross-roads,
although I have no information that their number is increasing. One of the signs, recommended by the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, to indicate the approach to a major road has been approved and highway authorities have already been informed to this effect. My hon. Friend will also be aware that light signals, which are being erected in considerable numbers with the aid of grants from the Road Fund, contribute greatly to the safe movement of traffic at crossroads.

Sir W. BRASS: Is my hon. Friend aware that this practice of marking main roads has been in existence for many years in foreign countries? Why are we always behind foreign countries in these safety measures?

EDUCATION (SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, LATCHFORD).

Mr. GOLDIE: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he is aware of the absence of a Catholic school on the new housing estate at East Latchford, Warrington, and that approximately 400 children are therefore compelled to travel daily outside this parish in order to obtain instruction in the faith of their parents; and whether, as the Catholics of Warrington are prepared to provide such a school without any expense to Government funds, he will forthwith authorise the building of suitable school premises?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The proposal to build a new Roman Catholic public elementary school at Latchford, to which my hon. Friend refers, has already been considered by the Board. Their decision has been postponed until it is possible to see the effect on the public elementary school accommodation available in the district of a new school which is expected to be opened in November next.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mrs. RUNGE: 32.
asked the Minister of Health the reasons for the increase in cases of maternal mortality; and whether these cases are evenly spread all over the country or are more noticeable in certain areas?

Sir H. YOUNG: The rate of maternal mortality in 1932, though slightly higher than in 1931, was slightly lower than in the three preceding years, and it is not possible to assign specific reasons for these small variations in the yearly rate. On the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Lady to Chapter VI of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality and Morbidity published last year.

Mr. LINDSAY: Will my right hon. Friend give that information to the "Daily Herald"?

Sir H. YOUNG: If that information were to become widely known it would remove some of the gross misrepresentations on the subject recently circulated in the Press.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether his Department is considering the question of the age distribution of maternal mortality to discover whether the increased mortality is due to the increased average age at which the mothers have children?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think I can assure my hon. Friend that these aspects of the question are constantly under investigation and consideration, and in particular interesting questions of statistical analysis such as that to which he has just referred.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case, as stated in the "Daily Herald," that maternal mortality is a standing disgrace to civilisation, and that this Government in making "cuts" will make conditions worse instead of making them better and alleviating the situation?.

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. That is an allegation which is absolutely without any foundation whatever in fact. I am delighted to be provided with this opportunity to give it the most categorical denial. On the contrary, the constant policy of His Majesty's Government is to press ahead with the development of the maternal services.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to ascertain whether in the better and the new housing areas of cities the rate of mortality is heavier or not?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is not always possible to relate statistics of mortality to any particular area which is not recog-
nised by the Registrar-General as a unit area for the collection of statistics, but I may say that deductions based upon mortality in areas which are not sufficiently big to give a true statistical basis are often very misleading.

HAIR WORM.

Mr. JOEL: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the discovery of the hair worm, which is dangerous to human beings, in Worcestershire; and whether there is reason to believe that there is any serious diffusion of this worm generally in England

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware that the presence of this worm has been reported in Worcestershire. I understand that the two species of worm commonly referred to as hair worms are both widespread in this country, but I am advised that there is no evidence that they are dangerous to human beings.

ENAMEL WARE.

Mr. JOEL: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether the use of enamel ware is being officially discouraged far use in public institutions; and what is being recommended in its place?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have not thought it necessary to discourage the use of enamel ware in public institutions, but I have issued a general warning that now that the use of antimony in place of tin has become common in the manufacture of enamel glazes, enamelled hollow ware vessels obviously intended for other purposes may be dangerous if used for the preparation or storage of food and drink.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 34.
Will my right hon. Friend circularise local authorities with a view to more tin being used?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, more pottery?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have already circularised local authorities as to the danger of the misuse of enamel ware with antimony in the glaze, and I should hesitate to recommend preference between one or other form of substance.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health the numbers,
respectively, of county councils, county borough councils, and other borough and district councils providing services under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918; and how many of such councils exercise the power to pay the midwife's fee in the case of necessitous mothers whose confinement takes place in their own homes?

Sir H. YOUNG: The numbers asked for in the first part of the question are, for England and Wales, 61 county councils, 83 county borough councils, and 289 other borough and district councils. As regards the last part of the question, the latest information available to my Department relates to the year 1932. At the end of that year 16 county councils, 43 county borough councils, and 46 other borough and district councils were exercising the power referred to.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is it not clear that the majority of local authorities are not exercising these most necessary and beneficent measures, and is it not a fact that the voluntary societies concerned have investigated this matter and have shown that it is largely due to the ignorance of these authorities of the fact that they have these powers, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that they do know, and exercise these necessary powers?

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think that the deduction that the majority of local authorities are making inadequate use of these powers would be accurate. On the contrary, I think they show very substantial use. I can repeat to my hon. Friend the assurance that I have just given to the House, that it is the policy of the Ministry of Health and of His Majesty's Government constantly to press ahead with the development and exercise of the powers of the Maternity and Child Welfare Act.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Yes, but when these powers are in existence and are not being used in certain cases because the local authorities do not know of these powers, will the right hon. Gentleman not tell these local authorities that they have these powers, and ask them to use them?

Mr. LAWSON: Would it be necessary to put these powers on to the local authorities and thus transfer the cost to the
rates, if some of the unemployed did not lose their rights to contributory pensions?

Sir F. FREMANTLE: May I have an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has replied.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

SURTAX.

Mr. LEONARD: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to make the information available as to the total amount of Surtax collected in 1931 from the 12,000 persons who in 1932 dropped below the level at which liability to Surtax would fall upon them?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): An inquiry to ascertain this information would involve considerable expenditure of time and labour, and in these circumstances I regret I cannot see my way to undertake it.

Mr. LEONARD: Does the hon. Member appreciate the difficulty of assessing the proper value of the figures already given unless the amounts appertaining to each return are also made available?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the 12,000 were not 12,000 special individuals, but the difference between the number assessed one year and the next?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. I think that is roughly the case. I am sure my hon. Friend opposite will appreciate that it would be difficult to analyse the returns of 12,000 people out of 100,000 people concerned.

Mr. LEONARD: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether reliable information can be made available to explain the marked decline in the amount of Surtax collectable from £76,700,000 in 1931–32 to £51,000,000 in the current year's Estimates; and whether he has any information as to the extent of the decline due to legal evasion?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The decline in the yield of surtax to which the hon. Member refers is to be attributed to shrinkage of income and not to growth of evasion. That shrinkage of income is due to the fall in all kinds of income, but
particularly in profits, dividends and interest which has taken place in recent years.

CURRENCY POLICY.

41. The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Colonel WEDGWOOD: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the injury to our export trade of the fall in the dollar; and whether he will free the £ sterling from franc parity at least so far as to allow the issue of foreign loans here which would leave this country to British-made goods, so giving some equivalent advantage to the suffering export trades?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the fourth line of the question the words should read: "which would leave this country as British-made goods."

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am afraid that does not make it any clearer. I have no information which would lead me to suppose that the fall in the exchange value of the dollar has seriously affected our export trade up to the present. I am not sure that I apprehend the meaning of the last part of the question, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that His Majesty's Government have constantly in mind the position of the export trade.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is my hon. Friend not aware of the fact that loans made abroad of British capital from England must leave this country as goods and therefore help the export trade? May I ask why the Treasury is still prohibiting the making of loans in this country to foreign countries, thus keeping up the value of the £ and hitting our export trade?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think that the assumption in the question of my right hon. Friend can be universally sustained.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How can capital leave this country except as goods?

STAMP DUTIES (KNIGHTHOODS).

Mr. TINKER: 46.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount paid by the Treasury during the last five years in respect of stamp duties on royal warrants, letters patent, and dockets conferring knighthoods on
persons who have been unable to attend investitures either through residence abroad or other causes; and will he state in what year of the five the highest amount was paid?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total payments made by the Treasury in the five years, 1928 to 1932, in respect of the stamp duties in question amounted to £2,448, and the year of the five in which the highest amount was paid was 1928.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Member aware that we have a Supplementary Estimate before us incurring a liability of £18,000, at a time of strict economy? Cannot the hon. Member advise those who accept these honours to pay for the cost of them?

GREYHOUNDS (IMPORTATIONS FROM IRELAND).

Mr. GROVES: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there has been a decline or an increase in the amount of duty paid on greyhounds imported from Ireland; and what sums have been collected from this source for the past three years?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Greyhounds imported from the Irish Free State only became liable to duty as from the 15th July, 1932, under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932. No information is available as to the amount of duty collected in respect of such animals as they are not separately classified in the revenue accounts, but are included under a general heading of "Animals not separately specified."

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TARIFF TRUCE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Import Duties Advisory Committee will be free from the date of the adjournment of the World Economic Conference to recommend increased import duties and the Treasury to make orders giving effect to such recommendations in respect of applications made after 12th May?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In the terms of the resolution adopted on 12th May by the Organising Committee of the World Economic Conference, the Govern-
ments concerned agreed that they would not adopt any new initiatives in the matter of tariffs before 12th June nor during the proceedings of the conference, except that in the case of any individual Government power was reserved to withdraw at any time after 31st July, 1933, on giving one month's notice to that effect. In the view of His Majesty's Government the Governments which subscribed to that resolution remain bound by its terms during any adjournment of the conference, until its proceedings are finally concluded.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Am I to understand from that answer that this country is bound for an indefinite period not to impose increased duties in certain cases? In these circumstances, will His Majesty's Government give the necessary one month's notice at the end of this month?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We are not bound for an indefinite period, because we have reserved the right to withdraw at any time after the 31st July, on one month's notice being given.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I take it that that notice will be given?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It depends whether there is cause to give notice, and what is the view of His Majesty's Government on that cause.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this tariff truce is entirely against our interests?

IMPORTED TOOTH-BRUSHES (MARKING).

Colonel GOODMAN: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether tooth-brushes, such as are now being sold in this country in cartons bearing the imprint "Made in Canada," and on the handle in gilt lettering the words "Made in Canada," and in small lettering "Made in Japan," are charged with the general ad valorem duty or additional duty or both such duties; or whether they are being treated as goods consigned from, and manufactured in, a part of the British Empire entitled to imperial preference and to admission free of duty?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed that no importation of tooth-brushes bearing the marks described can be traced. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with details of any par-
titular consignment, I will have further inquiries made.

Colonel GOODMAN: Will the hon. Member accept from me these samples which were purchased from London chemists, as proof of the statement in the question?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall be very happy to do so. That is what I asked my hon. and gallant Friend to present me with. I shall be happy to receive them as prima facie evidence of such importation, but, if they bear the description that he gives in the question, they will be liable to forfeiture under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. Therefore, my hon. Friend will excuse me if I do not return to him the tooth brushes.

RUSSIA (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that no trade agreement will be signed with Russia before the House has had an opportunity of discussing the principles of Russian trade in the light of recent events?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): In the event of a trade agreement being signed during the Recess, opportunity will be given, if desired, for the House to discuss such agreement before ratification.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that mean to say that whether the House is sitting or not there is a possibility of a trade agreement being fixed up with Russia?

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the hon. Member has forgotten that the executive have full power, and have always exercised it, to enter into such agreements. It is only during recent years that the practice has become general of laying such agreements on the Table of the House for 21 days, and I have given an assurance that before ratification there will, if desired, be a Debate,

CINEMATOGRAPH INDUSTRY.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Western Electric Company, Limited, of America, has supplied about 2,000 cinemas in this country with talking picture apparatus and in the contract for supply of such apparatus inserted clauses binding the purchaser only to get repairs done or
additional equipment or parts from them; that these clauses prevent British manufacturers from getting valuable orders which they are able to carry out; and whether, as the courts in the United States of America have recently decided that such clauses are illegal and void in that country, he will take steps by legislation to make it illegal to impose such restrictions in this country?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My attention has been called to the decision in a United States court, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I am informed that the apparatus and the replacement parts are manufactured to a very large extent in this country. As at present advised, my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to introduce legislation on the lines suggested.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL CLASSES).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of P-class clerks promoted in the Board of Inland Revenue, respectively, to the established clerical and departmental clerical classes up to the 1st April, 1933?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total is 481 of whom 68 were promoted to the general clerical class and 413 to the departmental clerical classes.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

EGG TRADE (REORGANISATION COMMISSION).

Sir PERCY HURD: 48.
asked the Minister of Agriculture in view of the demands of poultry farmers in England, Wales, and Scotland for the appointment of an egg reorganisation commission, if he can state when such a commission will be set up?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (Major Elliot): My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 11th July to a question by the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) on this subject. I am sending him a copy for convenience and can only add at this stage that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will reach
a decision on the application before us without avoidable delay.

Sir P. HURD: What is the cause of the delay that has already occurred?

Major ELLIOT: It was only on 10th July that we had notice that the organisations concerned desired this Reorganisation Commission to be set up. The delay has been with the organisations concerned.

FOWL CHOLERA.

Major CARVER: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if there have been any new outbreaks of fowl cholera, and, if so, where; whether the source of the disease has been traced; and what steps are being taken to prevent further importations of live poultry from the same source?

Major ELLIOT: Since the occurrence of the disease in Norfolk and Suffolk was brought to my notice, I have received information of two further outbreaks near Wymondham and Dim in Norfolk, and one at Chichester among poultry sent from Norfolk. The source of the disease is not yet established but inquiries are proceeding. The third part of the question does not therefore arise at the moment.

WHEAT EXPORTS (QUOTA SYSTEM).

Major CARVER: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the present position of the negotiations between the wheat-producing countries of the world to secure a quota agreement over wheat exports?

Major ELLIOT: Negotiations are still proceeding between the countries principally concerned, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES (JUTE BAGS).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a firm in receipt of the sugar-beet subsidy is purchasing the jute bags for beet pulp from abroad; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter in view of the provisions of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925?

Major ELLIOT: So far as my information goes, the bags used by British beet-sugar factories for white sugar are pur-
chased in this country, but, in the case of beet pulp, which is a comparatively low-priced commodity, some factories have purchased bags from Calcutta. With regard to the last part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, does not give me power to impose conditions with regard to the supply of materials and items of equipment for factories other than plant and machinery.

Miss HORSBRUGH: May I ask if it is not the case that until now beet pulp bags have always been bought in this country by subsidised firms; and whether it is true that the Anglo-Scottish Beet-Sugar Corporation Limited, of Colwick, Nottinghamshire have placed an order for over 1,000,000 bags outside the country? If that is so, will the Minister of Agriculture make representations, as otherwise all the bags may be purchased outside this country by subsidised firms?

Major ELLIOT: While my hon. Friend is no doubt desirous of maintaining the trade of her constituency, the importance of inter-Imperial trade must also be kept in mind.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Is it not the case that all the plant and machinery purchased by subsidised firms has to be purchased in this country?

Major ELLIOT: My hon. Friend will realise that it is impossible to discuss this matter by way of question and answer, but I shall certainly be happy to discuss it with her either now or later, as I have already done by the correspondence which she and I have had on the subject. I take this opportunity of complimenting her on procuring this further publicity for her constituents.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. MANDER: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if, with a view to bringing the dispute with the Irish Free State to an issue, he will consider the advisability of trying to see if agreement could be reached on the composition of a mutually agreeable tribunal, having regard to the declaration made on both sides, with complete freedom of choice as regards nationality?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The position of the Government in regard to arbitration of the financial dispute with the Irish Free State has been made fully clear on many occasions. While I am always ready to consider any suggestion, I doubt whether the suggestion which the hon. Member makes would be likely to assist materially in reaching a satisfactory settlement of the whole dispute.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has appeared in the newspapers a statement by Mr. de Valera that he is most anxious to come to an agreement with the British Government, and, in view of that statement, which appears to be rather extraordinary, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it an opportune moment for him to make an approach?

Mr. THOMAS: I not only saw the statement with interest and pleasure, but I reciprocate it.

Mr. McGOVERN: May I ask if he also saw the statement made in the Dail that they were prepared to accept the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) as a person to decide the issue provided it was acceptable to the British Government?

Mr. THOMAS: I am quite sure that the Irish Free State have as high an opinion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) as I have, but they have not put it to that test.

Mr. HEALY: Has not the whole trouble arisen over the hon. Gentleman's decision to limit the free choice of a tribunal?

Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary. The hon. Member must be aware that, apart entirely from the financial issue, there are political issues, and the position of the British Government is that they want the Treaty observed just as they themselves always observe it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION GRANT.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Dumbarton County Council
Education Committee passed a resolution that representations be made to the Government that the expenditure by the Education Committee in Scotland be, to the extent of 75 per cent., met by grant from the national Exchequer; and whether he will take steps to meet their request?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second, it will be obvious that so remarkable an increase in the rate of education grants as is suggested would impose a very large additional burden on the Exchequer. I cannot agree that there is any justification for such a proposal and, accordingly, I do not see my way to initiate any movement of the kind suggested.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the allocation to Scotland so far as education is concerned, that is, eleven-eightieths of what England gets?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am satisfied that the allocation granted to Scotland is the exact proportion granted in the past under the Goschen figure.

POTATO MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. J. WALLACE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that yesterday in the Court of Session, Edinburgh, interdict was granted against putting into operation the Scottish potato marketing scheme based upon the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir G. COLLINS: As to the first part of the question, I am aware of the court proceedings referred to by my bon. Friend, but as I understand the case is before the Courts to-day in Edinburgh, I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. WALLACE: While I do not expect my right hon. Friend to make any comment on a matter which is sub judice, is he aware that there is a very large number
of producers in Scotland who, while agreeing that the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act are quite suitable to England, realise that they are entirely inappropriate so far as Scottish interests are concerned, and will he consider that fact very seriously?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of those representations, but I cannot agree that the inference referred to by my hon. Friend is accurate. I will naturally consider all these matters before the Scottish scheme is submitted to this House.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS, GLASGOW (SENTENCE).

Mr. McGOVERN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the sentence of 14 days' imprisonment passed on Thomas Hendry, Thomas Lavelle, Lawrence Cairns, Hugh Wilson, Thomas Beattie, Patrick Chance, and Hugh O'Neil at the Central Police Court, Glasgow, on 13th July, by Stipendiary Smith, for playing football in the street at St. Margarets Place, Near Bridge-gate; if he is aware that four of these boys were never in a court previously and that the other two were only once charged with the same kind of offence, that their ages range from 16 to 18 years of age, that they were arrested and kept in the cells at Central Police Office for the night and that they are now serving that sentence in Barlinnie Prison and will he consider the case with a view to the reduction of the sentence?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware that the six lads referred to were tried and sentenced as stated. They were, however, charged, not with playing football in the street, but with conducting themselves in a disorderly manner while engaged in a game of football, and committing a breach of the peace. Evidence led at the trial indicated that they had been most disorderly and abusive, and that, although repeatedly warned by the police, their conduct for some time previously had evoked strong complaints from local residents. There is no ground to justify me in advising any interference with the sentence.

Mr. McGOVERN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman again to consider this case. Is he aware that two of these
lads were in employment and that the employer of one of the boys refused to believe that the boy had been sent to prison for playing football, and was not prepared to take the boy back? Is he also aware that this boy is an orphan; does he think it right that a boy who has been left without his parents should now be in a Barlinnie Prison on a charge of this kind; and is he prepared to condone action of this kind—the sentencing to imprisonment of boys between 16 and 18? I consider it is a most disgraceful thing—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Sir G. COLLINS: Let me remind the hon. Member that this is not a case of small children playing in the street. It is a case, so far as I can gather, I will not say of organised hooliganism, but of repeated offences caused to the local residents; and the local magistrate, having regard to the interests of the local residents, has taken the action mentioned by the hon. Member. In these circumstances, although I naturally regret that these young lads should have been sent to prison, where they have already stayed for a week, I am not in a position to remit the remainder of the sentence.

Mr. McGOVERN: When the Secretary of State says that there have been repeated offences, is he aware that at least four of these boys have never been in trouble of any kind before in their lives; and, having regard to the fact that they are only 16 or 17 years of age, is he prepared to let them lie in prison and make criminals of them, merely for the boyish prank of playing football in the street? Is the right hon. Gentleman so callous as to allow boys of that age to remain in prison in these circumstances?

Sir G. COLLINS: I wish to repeat in the strongest possible language that these boys were not sentenced for playing football in the street, but for being disorderly and abusive on several occasions, and, although the police have warned them repeatedly, they have, in the opinion of the police, become such a nuisance to the local residents that the magistrate has taken the course indicated in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is hardly a
Member of this House who has not been guilty at some time or other of practically the same kind of conduct without even being summoned?

Sir G. COLLINS: Naturally, this is a case which attracts the sympathy of every father in this House, and, when I addressed myself to this question, my sympathies were aroused. But when I went further and more fully into the matter, at the short notice placed at my disposal, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that it would be improper for me, having regard to all the facts of the case, no matter how my heart might desire to let the boys off, to act otherwise than I have done.

Mr. McGOVERN: May I ask the Secretary of State—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already put his question two or three times.

Mr. McGOVERN: I consider that the conduct of the Secretary of State in this matter is of the most callous and brutal order. I consider that I am justified in protesting against this callous conduct and for the Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) to be "hear, hearing" it is an absolute disgrace.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: rose
—

Mr. McGOVERN: I consider it is scandalous that boys should be allowed to lie in prison for the simple offence of playing football. [HON. MEMBERS: Order!"] I do not care one damn. It is brutal and damnable.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in conduct of that sort I shall have to deal with him very severely.

Mr. McGOVERN: I do not care a damn what you do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then I must name the hon. Member.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
That Mr. McGovern be suspended from the service of the House.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 24.

Division No. 274.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Patrick, Colin M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pearson, William G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Petherick, M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goldie, Noel B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baillle, Sir Adrian W. M.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Potter, John


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ramebotham, Herwald


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ray, Sir William


Borodale, Viscount
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Boulton, W. W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Horshrugh, Florence
Rothschild, James A. de


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jerson, Major Thomas E.
Sandman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Knight, Holford
Slater, John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Carver, Major William H.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Law, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cazaiet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spans, William Patrick


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Conant, R. J. E.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Storey, Samuel


Cook, Thomas A.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Cooke, Douglas
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Mabane, William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Cranborne, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Penick)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Homey)


Cross, R. H.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McKeag, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Donner, P. W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Weymouth, Viscount


Doran, Edward
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Drawe, Cadric
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monseil, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyree
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpedh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
North, Edward T.
Captain Margesson and Captain




Sir George Bowyer.




NOES.


Batey, Joseph
Healy, Cahir
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dagger, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Aneurin


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Bevan.


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) will withdraw from the House immediately.

Mr. McGOVERN: Mr. Speaker, I accept the decision of the House, and withdraw.

The hon. Member thereupon withdrew from the House.

IRISH IMMIGRANTS.

Captain TODD: 61 and 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many Irish immigrants came into this country from the Irish Free State and from Northern Ireland, respectively, during 1930, 1931 and 1932;
(2) how many travellers entered British ports from the Irish Free State, and how
many entered Irish Free State ports from Great Britain during 1930, 1931 and 1932?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As a number of figures are involved, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can my hon. and gallant Friend give the separate figures for Scotland when he circulates those figures?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Not without notice.

—
Arrivals from Irish Free State Ports.
Departures to Irish Free State Ports.
Excess of Arrivals over Departures.


1930
…
…
…
…
371,818
363,076
8,742


1931
…
…
…
…
376,356
370,642
5,714


1932
…
…
…
…
375,214
367,281
7,933


These numbers are inclusive of persons travelling between ports in the Irish Free State and other countries via ports in Great Britain.

Captain TODD: 23.
asked the Home Secretary if he has any information as to how many Irish immigrants are at present in our criminal lunatic asylums, Borstal institutions, and prisons?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The last published statistics of the Prison Commissioners show that out of 37,417 persons who were sentenced in 1932 to imprisonment or Borstal detention in England and Wales, 2,231 were born in Ireland. There is only one Criminal Lunatic Asylum for England and Wales, and I have ascertained that out of 800 patients in this Asylum, 21 are of Irish origin.

AIR NAVIGATION REGULATIONS (HISTORIC BUILDINGS).

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of Stale for Air whether he is aware that a low-flying aeroplane came near to damaging the roof of Ely cathedral during the King's Cup races on 8th July, by passing between the lantern of the cathedral and the eastern pinnacles of the lady chapel; that the cathedral has on several occasions been in similar danger; and whether he proposes to take steps to ensure the safety of such buildings?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I have
Following is the statement:
No information is available as to the number of immigrants entering Great Britain from the Irish Free State or from Northern Ireland. According to the statutory returns furnished to the Board of Trade the numbers of passengers (all nationalities) recorded as arriving at ports in Great Britain from ports in the Irish Free State, the numbers departing from ports in Great Britain for ports in the Irish Free State, and the excess of arrivals over departures, in 1930, 1931 and 1932, were as follows:
received no information in regard to this particular incident, but if the hon. Member will let me have further particulars, including if possible the registration marks of the aircraft, I shall certainly arrange for an immediate investigation. I may add that my Noble Friend is in entire sympathy with the concern of the hon. Member in this matter. The general regulation in the Air Navigation Order prohibiting the flying of aircraft so as to cause unnecessary danger to any person or property has been regularly brought to the attention of pilots in Notices to Airmen. Further, a special Notice to Airmen was issued. within the last 10 days enjoining on pilots the necessity of exercising particular care when flying in the neighbourhood of cathedrals and other historic buildings. I would appeal publicly to all pilots to see that this notice is honourably and strictly observed.

TOTALISATORS.

Mr. GROVES: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the totalisator is legally in operation in any Crown Colonies?

Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The totalisator is in use in Gibraltar, but my right hon. Friend is not in a
position to say as to the other Colonies, though the law in force in a number of them is such as to permit their use.

Mr. GROVES: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether he intends to introduce legislation to legalise the totalisator on greyhound tracks?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret I am not at present in a position to make any statement upon this subject.

Mr. GROVES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement before we rise for the Recess or early in the Autumn?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly not before we rise.

INDIA (BURMA).

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to announce the decision of His Majesty's Government with regard to the separation of Burma, or the inclusion of Burma, in the proposed new Indian Federation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): His Majesty's Government do not propose to reach any final decision on this matter pending the report of the Joint Select Committee, as the Committee in the course of their consideration of the future government of India will, it is assumed, make recommendations regarding the future of Burma.

GREYHOUND RACING TRACKS.

Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS (for Mr. CLARRY): 20.
asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to meet the widespread demand for stopping the practice in certain parts of the country of the operation of greyhound race tracks on Sunday?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret I can hold out no hope of introducing legislation on this subject in the near future, but the matter will not be overlooked and will be considered in connection with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Mr. McGOVERN (for Mr. MAX-TON): 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he can give figures, to the latest date, showing what progress has been made with his campaign against slums in the last 12 months?

Sir H. YOUNG: During the 12 months ended 30th June last local authorities in England and Wales submitted to the Minister resolutions declaring 406 areas, comprising 7,443 houses, to be clearance areas; 293 Clearance and Compulsory Purchase Orders affecting 6,910 houses were submitted for confirmation during this period and 241 Orders affecting 5,582 houses, were confirmed; in addition 362 houses were purchased by agreement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what is the object of the Motion on the Paper with regard to Government business?

Mr. BALDWIN: The object of the Motion to suspend the Eleven O'clock Rule is only to make progress with the Bill now before us, but there is no intention to ask the House to sit unduly late. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state the business for next week:
Monday: Supply, Committee, 19th Allotted Day—Post Office Vote.
Tuesday: Supply, Report, 20th Allotted Day.—Three Votes will be put down: the Mines Department, the Department of Agriculture (Scotland), and Law Charges and Courts of Law (Scotland).
At Ten o'clock on Monday and on Tuesday the Committee and Report stages, respectively, of all outstanding Supply Votes will be put from the Chair.
Wednesday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Second Reading.—The subjects of which we have notice are the World Economic Conference and Public Works Expenditure.
Thursday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, remaining stages.—Dominion affairs.
If all outstanding business has been disposed of, including the Third Reading of the Road and Rail Traffic Bill, consideration of Amendments to Bills which
may be received from another place, and a Motion to approve the Milk Marketing Scheme, the Government hope that it will be possible to take the Motion for the Summer Adjournment on Friday, 28th July, until Tuesday, 7th November.
The Motion for the Summer Adjournment will contain the usual provisions to empower Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course appears to be in the public interest.
It is the intention of the Government to bring the present Session to a close and begin a new Session as soon as practicable after the date of reassembly in November.
With regard to to-day's business, I am informed by the Chairman of Ways and Means that in order to meet the convenience of Members who object to the Bill, it is not proposed to take the consideration of the Adelphi Estate Bill tonight, but to postpone the Bill until next week. The Road and Rail Traffic Bill must be disposed of before the Summer Recess, and the Government hope to make good progress to-day. We should like to conclude the Report stage at about nine o'clock and begin the Debate on the Third Reading, and it would then seem possible to conclude the Third Reading Debate at about one o'clock to-morrow, and enable us to have time for the consideration of the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—War Loan Acts (Twenty-year 5½ per cent. Gold Bonds). I would only make this observation, that of course there is not the slightest desire or intention on the part of the Government to try to force this Measure through. It is entirely a matter for the good will of the House. If the House feels that this business can be disposed of—and I think the House as a whole will think that the business can be disposed of—the Adjournment can take place to-morrow week. If it cannot be disposed of, that must delay the Adjournment, which I for one am not ashamed to confess I should regret.

Mr. LANSBURY: On the general question, as I understand it, an endeavour is going to be made to finish the Report stage of the Road and Rail Traffic Bill by about nine o'clock to-night, and if
everybody co-operates we may be able to do it. Then, I understand, it is proposed to start the Third Reading tonight, and finish round about one o'clock to-morrow, in order that we may take what we think is a very important Motion in reference to the debt to America. We are willing to endeavour to do that, although we do not like being squeezed up quite so tightly in this hot weather. We would have preferred very much to have taken the Finance Resolution tomorrow first, but it has been pointed out to me that it would expedite matters to take it last, because that is a Motion which finishes at four o'clock, I understand, automatically, and in those circumstances we agree.
On the general question of adjourning right away until 7th November, until I have had an opportunity of further considering that with my friends, I am not sure whether we do not want to put in another date. It seems a very long time. I agree that we have had an exhausting Session, but to adjourn until 7th November seems too long, looking at it offhand, and I should like to ask the Lord President—I may tell him that, because we may move an Amendment to it—whether it would be possible for us to have the Unemployment Insurance Bill a good time before the House reassembles, so as to give everybody a chance of thoroughly digesting it. It is, I understand, to be the major Bill of the new Session, and we would like to have it in our hands so as to be able to consult with our friends, and so on, in order that we may be prepared properly to discuss the Bill.
Then I want to ask a question, only in order to clear up something, of which we have already given notice, which we consider of very great importance in the time that will be available before the new Session. We want the Patronage Secretary to give us an opportunity to discuss the working of last year's Health Insurance Act. It is extremely important. We wanted to do it now. I am not sure that we are doing quite the right thing in not sitting an extra day in order to discuss the working of the Act up to the present and its effect on people in the very near future. But if we do not do that, I want to stake out a claim for time to discuss this in circumstances which will enable the Minister himself first to make a statement so that the
House can thoroughly discuss it. In our view, the House, when it knows the facts, will want to amend that Act very drastically.

Mr. J. WALLACE: Might I ask the Lord President whether it is not the case that Tuesday of next week was originally fixed for Scottish Estimates, and whether he thinks it fair or adequate that the discussion of the remaining Estimates for Scotland should be thrust among other business on Tuesday, instead of giving a full day for the very important matters which Scottish Members wish to discuss?

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite will put his first question next week, and I will see that he has an answer. As regards his second question, I do not think there will be any difficulty about what, if I may say so, is a perfectly reasonable claim. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace), we must be guided in allotting Supply time by the request of the Opposition, and that is what we have done on this occasion. We understand it was the wish of the Opposition to take the Mines Department Vote.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to make this clear? We asked for the Mines Vote in order to discuss the coal mines situation, but specially to put our view and to hear the Minister's view as to what they are doing in reference to getting petrol, etc., from coal, and if we can get the discussion through early, the hon. Member will have very good time for Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can say on what day the Milk Scheme will be considered?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid that I cannot answer that now.

Mr. J. WALLACE: I regard the matter I have raised as very important, and I should like to give notice that on the first opportunity on the Adjournment of the House, I shall call attention to the neglect of Scottish affairs by His Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise only to make certain about a few points. I am in absolute agreement with the Leader of the Opposition in regard to his point
about Unemployment Insurance. understand that a discussion will be allowed on changes in National Health Insurance before we adjourn?

Mr. BALDWIN: No.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am asking whether there will be any opportunity before the Adjournment to discuss changes in National Health Insurance.

Mr. BALDWIN: There will be certainly no opportunity on the Votes I have announced. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean when we reassembled, and it was on that understanding that I said I thought an opportunity should be granted.

Ordered,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

COAL MINES ACT (1930) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend paragraph (e) of sub-section (2) of section three of the Coal Mines Act, 1930," presented by Captain Ramsay; supported by Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Duncan Graham, Earl of Dalkeith, Commander Cochrane, Lieut.-Colonel Clifton Brown, Captain McEwen, Mr. Slater, and Miss Ward; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

DOVER HARBOUR BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill,

Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Bill,

Manchester Ship Canal Bill, without Amendment.

Bridlington Corporation Bill,

Dewsbury Corporation Bill,

St. Helens Corporation Bill,

Manchester Royal Infirmary Bill,

Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council Bill,

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Amendment to—

Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law relating to the national status of married women so far as is necessary for giving effect to a convention on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, signed on behalf of His Majesty at The Hague on the twelfth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, and for purposes incidental to the matters aforesaid." [British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the urban district of Wellington, in the county of Salop." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wellington, Salop) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Worthing." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Worthing) Bill [Lords.]

Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Bill,—That they agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to one of their Amendments to the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Bill, without Amendment; and do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WELLINGTON, SALOP) BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WORTHING) BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [19th July] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Which Amendment was: In page 11, line 19, to leave out the words "A licence and of every B."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

4.10 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: Last night, at 11 o'clock, I was addressing the House on this Amendment, and I want shortly to explain its effect, because the Committee stage of the Bill was taken upstairs, and, naturally, those Members who were not on the Committee or present last night, may be at a loss to know what the Amendment means. The Amendment asks that two kinds of licences mentioned in the Clause shall be deleted. The Clause states definitely that the fair wages clause shall apply to two classes of licences and that would mean that the licence known as "C" would not come under the same provision as the other two licences. In a comprehensive Bill dealing with transport, there are three essential things. The first is the safety of the public; the second, the question of the hours of the employés; and the third ought to be the fair wages clause applied to all who are employed. The first two have been admitted by the House. The first, of course, everyone would accept without any question, because the safety of the public ought to be the first consideration, and the House has accepted the limitation of hours. The right hon. Gentleman last night after a long discussion accepted the position, and said he would put that matter right.
With regard to the "C" licence, the fair wages clause will not apply if this Clause is carried in its present form, and I cannot understand how the best kind of men will be obtained if they are not protected by the fair wages clause. The whole of the licences cover 400,000 men. If the "C" licence is not brought in, it means that 300,000 will be outside the fair wages clause, so that only 25 per cent. will be subject to what is termed
good wages, and, after ail, the fair wages clause cannot be called excessive in this matter. In the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Section 93 covers that, and I think it was understood then that this would apply to all wages and conditions applicable to anybody. The Section states:
The wages paid by the holder of any road service licence to persons employed by him in connection with the operation of a public service vehicle and the conditions of their employment shall not be less favourable to them than the wages which would be payable and the conditions which would have to be observed under a contract which complied with the requirement of any resolution of the House of Commons for the time being in force applicable to contracts with Government Departments.
That is all for which we are asking in reference to this Amendment, and one would have thought that if that concession was given in the Act of 1930, there could be no objection by the Minister now to include all under this Bill in that category. Last night, the Minister stated that he had given full consideration to this matter, that he had met one side, the employers, but did not think it necessary to meet the other side, and after those meetings he decided that it was almost impossible to include "C" Licences, with the result that he could give no pledge to the House that he would bring them within the category of the fair wages Clause.
Last night, rather strangely, we had from both sides of the House opposition to the Minister from persons who at other times give him full support, and one would have expected, in view of opposition of that kind, defending our point of view, the Minister would have given way. The hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) stood by the Opposition, and said that he thought the Minister's position could not be upheld, and that he ought to give way to the appeal made by the Opposition. But the most striking speech of all was from the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), who has taken great interest in this Bill, and one is very pleased indeed at the way in which he has done it. Previously to this Bill, we never had a great opinion of the hon. Member who was always opposed to our point of view, but last night we saw another side of his character. Last night he altered my outlook by the way that he defended this Amendment. I Have reinforced my good
opinion of him by reading the speech that he made last night. It is well worth reading. He said:
The Minister said that he had seen the employers of various big industries, and they had put up to him a number of most ingenious objections, which seemed to make it quite impossible that they should comply with the fair wages Clause. I am aware that there would be a disinclination on the part of any body of employers to have any restrictions as to wages imposed upon them if they could possibly avoid it. That is common ground, and it is a matter of common sense. People do not like restrictions, and in saying that, I am speaking as an ex-employer myself; but I do not think these arguments are so valid as the Minister thinks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1933; col. 1956, Vol. 280.]
The hon. Baronet is pointing out to the Minister that it is unfair to deal with only one side of this question. He points out that the Minister could only get the employers' point of view, which always is that they do not want any restrictions in regard to wages. An employer always says that he can deal with his employés better without any restrictions, but we say that that is not so, and hence the trade union movement which is always fighting for the fair wages clause. If the Minister had wanted to deal with this matter fairly and squarely and to come to the House prepared with all the arguments, he ought to have met both sides. If he could then have convinced the House that it was impossible to include all the licences, he would have been on sounder ground. We cannot accept the present position, and the only fair way out of the difficulty is for the Minister to say that he is prepared to consider both sides of the question and to meet both the employers' and the workmen's representatives. Now that the House of Commons has set out on a particular line of policy to control both road and rail traffic and to put it on a fair basis, the men must be protected by a fair wages clause. I hope that the Minister will not take the attitude he took last night in saying that nothing can be done, but that he will reconsider it and meet both sides.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: Unfortunately I was not able to hear all the discussion yesterday, but I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that there is almost a general consensus of opinion that the present position of this matter is unsatisfactory, whether it is not possible
for him to meet us in some way by agreeing, not to pledge himself to give anything, but to consult us to see whether it is not possible to draft a Clause which will meet the case that has been put by so many Members of all parties.

4.19 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) made an appeal to me last night, and I should have risen to respond to it but for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I must say that his speech has not made me more ready to meet my hon. Friends opposite, but, as I indicated during my speech last night, I was prepared at any time to meet the trade unions who are interested in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh has chosen to repeat the attack about the unfairness of seeing only one side. I want to explain to the House again, as I did yesterday, that in Committee I made it quite plain that as the difficulties were those put up by the employers it was the employers that I intended to see, and that so far as the unions were concerned, I was accepting the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) as speaking on their behalf. I was ready at any time to meet any of the trade union leaders and to discuss it with them. As a consequence perhaps of the Debate last night, I received this morning a letter from Mr. Bevin, and I am making arrangements, which I hope will be successful, to receive a deputation next week. I am perfectly willing to hear whatever they have to say on the matter.
I want to make it quite clear that there is no suggestion whatever of my giving any pledge at all, and, in whatever action hon. Members feel that they ought to take on this Amendment, I do not want them to be influenced by what I am saying. I gave the House last night the facts as I knew them, and an those facts I asked the House to come to a certain decision. So far as I am concerned today, those facts still stand, but I am perfectly ready to hear people who say that they will be in a position to put new facts before me. I can assure the House that if at any time before the passage of the Bill I receive any facts which are new in character or put the facts which I gave last night in a different light, I shall certainly submit them to Parliament
again before I ask it to give any decision upon the matter.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: We should have preferred that the hon. Gentleman had been rather more sympathetic in his attitude of mind towards his meeting with the trade union leaders. On this matter we have always been in touch with those whom we consult on labour questions, and, if the hon. Gentleman will meet the unions with a perfectly open mind and re-discuss the matter with them, I will, on behalf of my hon. Friend, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. PARKINSON: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 9.—(Variation of licences.)

4.23 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I beg to move, in page 12, line 27, to leave out the words "of a vehicle."
The Amendment is made to satisfy the objections taken by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Aled Roberts) during the Committee stage, and the proviso is now modified to make it clear that the licensing authority will be bound to grant an application for the substitution of one vehicle for another which does not exceed the weight unladen.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I should like to thank the Minister for moving this Amendment. It certainly does make the position much clearer and will be a considerable assistance to people when they are changing vehicles.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 28, leave out the words, "of the same type and," and insert instead thereof the words, "of a vehicle of the same or of a less."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.)

CLAUSE 10.—(Objections to certain applications for licences, or variations of licences.)

4.25 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 13, line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) an application for a licence to expire not later than an existing licence under which the vehicles to which the application relates are authorised to be used for the purposes of a business which the applicant has acquired or intends to acquire; or.
This Amendment is to meet a point raised by an hon. Friend in Committee. He asked that the holder of a licence who disposed of his vehicles should have the definite right to transfer that licence to the man who purchased his vehicles. I was not able to concede that, because I wanted to maintain the principle that no one has a vested interest in the licence. But what I suggested was that in cases of this kind the discretion should be given to the licensing authority if they saw fit to make use of the simplified procedure which is allowed in certain cases and which dispenses with the necessity for advertising and for the hearing of objections. This Amendment is designed to give them that discretion, and I think that it will substantially meet the point which was made by my hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

4.27. p.m.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: I beg to move, in page 14, line 11, at the end, to insert the words,
and such inquiries shall be held in public.
This is another Amendment of the same extremely reasonable and hopeful kind that I moved last night, which the Minister was gracious enough to accept. I hope that he will take a similar course with regard to this Amendment, because I believe it is only right and proper that a tribunal which will be dealing with matters of great importance, where large interests are at stake in which not only the applicants but the general public and others are concerned, should not hold its inquiries as a general rule behind closed doors but in the light of day. We had a discussion on this matter during the Committee stage, and I must confess that my hon. Friend's reply left me entirely unconvinced, because in substance it simply amounted to this: "I do not find myself able to accept that this Amendment is in the interests of the applicant, inasmuch as if inquiries are held in public the applicant necessarily feels that he is put to the heavy expense of employing counsel, solicitors, agents and others to represent him, and I want to avoid that." I do not know whether the Minister would suggest that if in-
quiries are held in private applicants are not to be allowed to be represented, because I should have thought that they would be as entitled to be represented if the inquiry were in private as if it were held in public. My hon. Friend was then reminded that under the Road Traffic Act of 1930 all applications with regard to public service vehicles and so forth are held in public, and perhaps I may read what he said on that point:
It is true, as a matter of fact, that the precedent of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment. In that Act we did make it compulsory for every application to be publicly held, and it is because of that precedent that I am submitting an altered procedure to be permitted. It has undoubtedly been found that the result of making every application, however trivial, heard in public is that the applicants have gone, perhaps voluntarily, but at any rate have gone, to greater expense than they need have done. They think that because it is a public hearing they have got to turn up with a retinue of counsel, solicitors and agents and all the other expensive paraphernalia, if I may so describe them, of such applications."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 2nd June, 1933; col. 363.]
I would like to ask the Minister—I would almost go so far as to challenge the Minister on this point—whether he has any reason to believe that applicants under the Road Traffic Act are so dissatisfied with the proceedings being held in public that they would like an Amendment of that Act to enable them to be heard in private? I have made some inquiries, and from all the information I have been able to gather those who have had to make applications under the Road Traffic Act, whatever criticisms they may have against it on other points, certainly desire to retain the provision that these applications should be held in public, both in their own and in the public interest. The House will notice that on the very next Clause the Minister has put down an Amendment in regard to public inquiries. The Amendment is: In page 14, line 32, after the word "unless" to insert the words:
he is satisfied, after holding a public inquiry, if the holder of the licence requests him so to do, that.
I agree that there may be cases in which the proceedings, or some part of the proceedings, should be held in private, but that could easily be provided for, and I submit, with as much emphasis as I can, that it is most desirable, as a general rule and subject to any safeguards which
the Minister may think fit to insert with regard to private hearings of the whole or any part of certain applications, that these proceedings should be in public. I submit, indeed, that a public hearing is really essential in order to secure that respect for the decisions of the licensing authority which, I am sure, we all desire should attach to them. The principle has already been laid down in the Road Traffic Act, and it is not a principle that any of the applicants under that Act desire to see changed, and I submit that the same principle ought to apply in this case both in the interests of the applicant and of the public as a whole, and, indeed, one might add, of the administration of justice.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: This Amendment follows on the lines of one for which I was responsible when the Bill was in Committee and which was then rejected by the Minister. It is an Amendment which I heartily support, because it concerns a matter of considerable importance. Under this Bill tremendous powers are being given to a Government Department. I regard that as a danger in itself, and if, in addition, we give a licensing authority power to hear these cases in private we are treading a very dangerous path indeed—the slippery slope to complete and uncontrolled bureaucracy. As was said yesterday by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), we are by this Bill creating semi-monopolies. It is eminently desirable, therefore, to have the greatest measure of publicity as a safeguard against any element of corruption. To hold these inquiries behind closed doors is obnoxious and foreign to all our ideas of the administration of justice. The powers of the licensing authorities are, to say the least, quasi-judicial, and to hold these inquiries in private would be an entirely new procedure and one of which the House ought to beware. It is a retrograde step, in my view, and, speaking with some little knowledge of the operation of the Road Traffic Act, I am convinced that it would not be in the best interests either of the public or of the applicants themselves. It is possible, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested, that on rare occasions an applicant might be assisted by an inquiry being held ill private, but any possible advantage in that direction would be
more than offset by the potentialities for abuse. If we are to have restrictive legislation of this nature, for goodness' sake let us have the light of day shed upon its administration. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment, and that if he does not my hon. and learned Friend will press it.

4.37 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): This is a matter upon which reasons may be advanced on either side, and not one upon which it is possible for anybody to come to a very clear and final conclusion. It must be a question of the balance of advantages. Generally speaking, I suppose, everybody in the House would be in favour of publicity, but publicity which is a source of unnecessary expense and, still more, of unnecessary delay, may be too dearly purchased. I would refer to the Section of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, on which my hon. and learned Friend has relied as a precedent. It is not quite a precedent for his proposal. Under the Sub-section which my hon. and learned Friend wishes to amend, the licensing authority is not compelled to hold an inquiry at all. He may, the Clause says, hold such inquiries as he thinks necessary for the proper exercise of his functions under this Act, and I am inclined to think the Amendment is not quite adapted to the Clause as it stands, because it is adding a mandatory provision to what is a permissive one. It is not very useful to say that a man may hold such inquiries as he thinks fit and shall hold those inquiries in public. Obviously that gives him the opportunity of saying, "I have got to hold it in public if I hold it at all, and therefore I shall not hold an inquiry." That is a method by which my hon. and learned Friend's object would be easily defeated.
I am inclined to think that inquiries by the licensing authority will, in general, be held in public, for the very reason that it will probably be difficult for the licensing authority to get the full information wanted in many cases unless it is held in public, and in all proper cases there will be complete power on the part of the licensing authority to have that publicity which my hon. and learned Friend desires. But in many other cases there will be rather more information
required than can be obtained by a letter, and it may be necessary to hold what is really an inquiry, but such a one as can be held quite conveniently, with complete justice to all parties concerned, by the licensing authority fixing a time and place, which need not be advertised and need not be held in circumstances which enable the Press and what are called the public to come in. Such an inquiry would certainly not be what my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag) described as "entering upon the slippery slope of bureaucracy." It would be a most natural and useful proceeding, suitable to the circumstances for which such procedure is appropriate. In Committee the Minister did refer to the expense entailed upon persons who are affected by Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act. That is a mandatory Section. It says:
The commissioners shall, for the purpose of hearing and determining applications … hold public sittings at such places.
They have to hold public sittings, and cannot determine an application without an inquiry, and in public. They are different provisions from those which my hon. and learned Friend wants to make by his Amendment, and although, as I say, it is impossible for anyone to say, as a matter of principle, that we cannot have public inquiries, I think the balance of advantage, as the result of the experience of the Road Traffic Act, is in favour of saying that the licensing authority may hold inquiries which he thinks necessary without giving any directions which will compel him to add to those inquiries the conditions of publicity. I only desire to add that when, in Committee, it was explained that parties concerned would, no doubt, be free to attend these inquiries by permission of the authority holding the inquiry, the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment withdrew it. I rather suggest that on this occasion my hon. and learned Friend might like to follow the same course.

4.43 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Matters of this sort are always rather difficult of determination, because they fall into one of two classes. They are either administrative inquiries or judicial inquiries. I think it has generally been accepted, in the law of this country that a judicial inquiry must be held in public, but in the
case of an administrative inquiry that question has been left in different cases in different positions. The difficulty in approaching a problem of this sort is to determine whether it is an administrative or a judicial inquiry. From the point of view of the applicant, the person who is likely to get a refusal, it is always a judicial inquiry. He always hopes the matter will be determined judicially, and not looked upon as a mere departmental matter to be decided by administration. Personally, I should have thought that these inquiries fell into the class of judicial inquiry rather than into the class of administrative inquiry, and that therefore it was right to incorporate a provision that they should be held coram populo, which is the basis of a judicial inquiry.
But there is another point which arises out of the form of the Sub-section as it stands and what the right hon. and learned 'Gentleman has just said as regards the possibility of having a public inquiry. He will have very fresh in his mind a recent case in which this question was raised—I think it, was under the Industrial Assurance Act—in which there were no words saying whether the inquiry was to be in public or not. The Commissioner was entitled to hold it in public, and the actual complaint was that the public had been allowed in, that reports had appeared about it, and that some of the assurance society's business had been published, which had done the society considerable harm. Reports had been put out and accusations made, without approval, and the society took the attitude that the Commissioner was not entitled to sit in public and that the inquiry was an administrative inquiry which had to be conducted not in public. I think that this Sub-section raises a somewhat similar difficulty, and that questions might well be raised under it as to whether the licensing authority can sit in public. An applicant may say: "I strongly object to my business"—or whatever it may be connected with this—"being done in public." The assurance society objected in that way, and it is an attitude which any defendant or complainant may take if they have a rather bad case.
I do not think that it is satisfactory for the Minister to rely upon the power, which is not expressed in the Bill, of
the licensing authorities to hold meetings in public if they require to do so. A clear statement one way or the other should be put in. I hope that the Minister will take the view, as I press him to do, that the inquiry is of a judicial nature and ought to be in public; if he will not accept that view, words should be inserted that will entitle the licensing authorities to hold inquiries in public if they consider that it is proper to do so. That would clear up all doubt on the matter. The Minister cannot say that this is purely administrative; it is judicial, and I am sure that the learned Attorney-General will agree with me that in every case it has been the tenor of our law that a judicial inquiry must, and ought to be, held in public.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: May I emphasise the point which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend? When the power to grant licences was taken from the local authorities and was vested in commissioners, many of us had great doubts as to whether the Statute applied to them or not. Many of us felt, that although a good deal of fault might have been found with the way in which local authorities had discharged their duty, those authorities were subject to public pressure, and could not very well allow nepotism in their decisions without there being public consequences of that nepotism. In many parts of the country, when local authorities arrived at decisions which many of us regarded as undesirable, those decisions had to be merely ventilated, and the councillors were held responsible and had to pay the price. When commissioners were appointed, many of us had considerable doubt, because, unfortunately, what they had to decide in many cases were not questions of law, but questions of fact. The law itself is not clear on the matter, and such is the case with the Bill. For example, whether a man should be granted an "A" or a "B" licence is very largely a question of fact, in which several interests are involved. If those interests were merely the interests of the applicant for the licence and those of the Minister, it would be easy for the Minister, or for the commissioners, to arrive at a decision that would be universally accepted, but if you have not merely the relationship between the applicant for the licence and the Minister, but
other and conflicting interests, there should be an inquiry of the most public kind possible.
In the course of the last few months, decisions have been arrived at by the commissioners which have given rise to objections in many parts of the country; public meetings have been held and people have been convinced that the decisions of the commissioners were not arrived at in a spirt of judicial impartiality. That is a result that must always arise in these circumstances. We are granting licences to persons to allow them to make profits. Up to now, individuals, within the very wide limits set by the law, have been allowed to make profits in whatever way they thought best, and it was considered that the public interest would be best served by allowing the widest range of individual liberty. On this occasion, individual liberty is being restricted, and the State is granting licences to persons to conduct their business, or refusing licences in other cases. I am a, Socialist, and I consider that when the State intervenes in business in this way it is almost impossible for it to protect itself against charges of nepotism. Some men are to be granted lucrative licences and other men are not, and it is awfully difficult to construct a body of law which will ensure that that is done impartially.

Mr. MABANE: How does nepotism come in?

Mr. BEVAN: I say that it comes in at once, because there is no body of law and no system of equity to decide impartially between the two courses of action of saying to one man, "You shall have this" and to the other, "You shall not have it." You are giving livelihood to one man, and taking away livelihood from the other. Perhaps the hon. Member will provide the House of Commons with a system of jurisprudence which will be equitable. The real difficulty is that the State has embarked upon the regulation of business, but has not constructed any system of what might be called public good in accordance with which the licences are to be granted or withheld. We have here the bare skeleton and the beginnings of it, but it has not grown into a body of law, and "public interest" has not been exactly defined. Where the
State intervenes in the arena of private interest, we should give to private interest the greatest possible opportunity of stating grievances and ventilating points of view.
I cannot quite see a point which has been made by the Minister. Surely it is not true to say that if the inquiry is held in public more expense is involved. I have seen inquiries held in public on more than one occasion in which, because it has been held in public, it was regarded as unnecessary to have a large number of witnesses. It is not the public that we are convincing, but the commissioner. If you had to convince the public, a large array of witnesses might he necessary. If we are to embark on legislation of this kind, we ought to protect ourselves and the public against the development of a system which might become an abuse in the future, particularly having regard to the interests involved, because we are now, not for the first time, developing a system of granting licences to people as a result of which great commercial profits might be made.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was right when he said that it was difficult to determine between a judicial and an administrative inquiry, but I would rather put the proposals of this Bill into a different analogy, and that is the analogy of the judge. We, in a, way, are impartial observers, but we want applicants for licences to get the fairest possible deal in the cheapest possible way. Hon. Members will realise that the whole expense of obtaining licences will be borne by the licence holders themselves, and it is from that point of view that we think that the authorities should retain the discretion to sit in private if they like. Hon. Members will realise that sitting in private does not mean just interrogating an applicant on his own. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the words "hold an inquiry" certainly give a right to the authorities interested to be there, and to be represented if they so desire. It is simply a question of whether the inquiries are to be held in a public room, in the presence of the public and the Press. It has been the experience, under the Road Traffic Act, where a public inquiry has to be held, that a great many applications of quite trivial importance have to
be put down for a particular day when a public sitting is to be held in a particular place, and, what I consider now an unfortunate consequence—although some years ago I should have considered it rather fortunate—in order that the applicant who is to attend the hearing may provide himself beforehand with all the legal talent which his resources, limited or unlimited, may command.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Would not the hon. Gentleman prohibit counsel altogether in these inquiries? That would be a great step forward.

Mr. STANLEY: I would not take such a drastic step as that. That is the last thing I would think of doing. I believe that if we leave matters as they are, the applicant will suffer nothing. In the

CLAUSE 11.—(Power to revoke or suspend licences.)

5.6 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 14, line 32, after the word "unless," to insert the words:
he is satisfied, after holding a public inquiry, if the holder of the licence requests him so to do, that.
After the almost defeat of the Government, I am glad to say that this is an Amendment to which I feel no one will object, and which should certainly gain the admiration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In Committee it was felt that, in a case where the question was one
vast majority of cases, inquiries will be held in public, but, on the other hand, it may be private in certain cases, in order to save the applicant the unnecessary expense to which otherwise he would be put. With regard to the other point put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not sure, after hearing what he said, that the case that he, cited was very much to the point. In order that it should be put beyond the possibility of doubt that these inquiries may be held in public, I am prepared in another place to insert words to that effect.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 39.

Division No. 275]
AYES.
[5.0 p.m.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Healy, Cahir
Mainwaring, William Henry


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rantoul, Sir Gervais S.


Cove. William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cowan, D. M.
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leonard, William



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. McKeag and Mr. Aled Roberts.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
McEntee, Valentine L.





NOES.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Greene, William P. C.
Ross Taylor, Welter (Woodbridge)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Harbord, Arthur
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Brocklebank, C. E, R.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Strauss, Edward A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Doran, Edward
Mabane, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Weymouth, Viscount


Everard, W. Lindsay
Petherick, M.



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Pike, Cecil F.
Captain Austin Hudson and


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Potter, John
Commander Southby.

of revocation or suspension of a licence, the licensing authority should hold a public inquiry, and the Minister, while not feeling that it would be possible to make that a compulsory obligation upon the licensing authority, yet saw the desirability of changing slightly the terms of the Clause. Accordingly, this Amendment has been put down, and I hope it will satisfy hon. Members who are anxious for publicity.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 36, leave out from the first word "the" to the end of the line.—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Appeals to Appeal Tribunal in connection with, licences.)

5.8 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 17, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
but the Tribunal may remit the whole or part of any fee if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that by reason of his poverty it is proper so to do.
This Amendment is put down in consequence of an appeal which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made in Committee, that some provision should be made for cases in which it was a poor man who was applying to the Appeal Tribunal. The tribunal will have power to charge fees, and this Amendment will give them the power to remit the whole or part of those fees in case of poverty of the applicant.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 28, leave out the word "and," and insert instead thereof the word "nor."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Records as to hours of work, journeys, loads, etc.)

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Subject to the provisions of regulations made under this section.
This Amendment and the next Amendment—In page 17, line 31, to leave out the words "and subject to," and to insert instead thereof the word "the"—are practically drafting in character, but I think they will have the effect of making it even more plain that I have the power by these regulations to prescribe different requirements in the case of different classes of vehicles. I think it was clear already that I did have that power, but it will be made even more clear by this drafting change.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I am sorry to have to ask the Minister to make himself a little more clear in regard to this matter. He says that this is a drafting Amendment, and extends his powers in a way that will make it easier for him to do the things which in Committee he said he was going to do. I think that everyone in the Committee was anxious that the Minister should have power to ask from certain trades less detail than
is laid down in Clause 14 as it now stands, but I am doubtful whether, even with this Amendment, he is taking sufficient power to do all that we want him to do. The Clause, even as thus amended, will say that, subject to the regulations which will be made, the holder of a licence shall cause to be kept, in accordance with the regulations, current records showing certain things. Not being a, lawyer, I do not know, arid that is why I am asking at this stage, whether it is quite clear that the regulations which the Minister can make will give him the power to tell certain trades that they need not keep all these records which the Bill says they must keep.
This is a matter of very great importance. In Committee we went into it in detail and the Minister admitted its importance. Many of us pressed him to take these powers, and he said he would consider doing so. If this be the Amendment which is intended to give him these powers, I should like some assurance that it will do so. What we all had in view in Committee was that, while certain people, such as haulage contractors with "A" licences, and holders of "B" licences, would not be under any hardship in having to keep the records laid down in the Clause, because the keeping of these records is part of their ordinary business, yet there are plenty of traders—for instance, distributive traders and private traders holding "C" licences—upon whom it would be a hardship and an expense to have to keep records of details such as itineraries of journeys, weights, and so on. From the discussion in the Committee, I do not think the Minister ever contemplated being unreasonable, but I would ask him now for some assurance that it will be possible for him to be as reasonable as I think he intended to be.

Mr. STANLEY: I assured my hon. Friend in Committee that I had that power. This drafting Amendment does not give me increased power, but makes it clear that I have the necessary power. I think it is quite clear that I can prescribe, for different classes of traffic, different ways of fulfilling the requirements of the Clause in such a manner as to ensure that no class of traffic will be subjected to undue hardship. I quite see that, in the cases to which my hon. Friend referred, different requirements
will have to be drawn up in such a simple way that they will cause no great difficulty. I am sure that under the Clause as it stands I have the power to do that.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 31, leave out the words "and subject to," and insert instead thereof the word "the".—[Mr. Stanley.]

5.15 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 17 line 41, after the word "weight," to insert the words "or number of packages."
This may strike the casual observer as unnecessary, but it seems to me to be very necessary from the point of view of convenience. The Minister has already told us that he has power to vary all the requirements, but it does not seem to me that he has power to substitute for any one of these particulars some other particular which will answer the same purpose. There is a requirement in the Clause by which the Minister may make provision for requiring drivers of authorised vehicles to carry documents and to make entries thereon. With class "A" licence holders, and with many of the "B" holders, the position will arise that the document which will contain all the weights and other details required by the Bill will not be the actual document which the driver is in the habit of carrying.
It is the custom in the haulage trade for the driver to be given a delivery order, which he presents at the place where he intends to pick up goods, to show that he is entitled to pick them up. He gives a signed receipt and, when he gets to the other end, he obtains a signature to cover himself. In the vast majority of cases the weight is not mentioned. That is a matter that is dealt with by means of a quotation before the load is carried, and a settlement of the account is made when the goods get to the other end. The driver is only concerned with the number of packages. He simply puts so many bales of cotton on to the wagon. I am anxious to make some provision by which weights may be kept at the office in the ordinary way and shall not form part of the records carried by the driver. The Minister said in Committee that he would consider
this matter. He has not put an Amendment down and I hope he will be able to accept this.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I certainly have no objection to the Amendment in principle, although I think it will probably be inoperative, because it seems to me that either the packages will be of standard weight, in which case a simple multiplication of the weight by the number of packages will give the total weight and there would be no need to fill it in, or, if they were of no standard weight and had not been weighed, it seems to me that to know the number of unweighed packages would really be quite useless. Provided that we can make it plain that the number of packages is purely an alternative to the weight, and that we do not diminish in any way our power to require this information as to weight, I will certainly consider the Amendment. I am advised that there might be some danger that this would to some extent derogate from our powers in regard to weight. I will consider an alternative form of words but I cannot at the moment see the circumstances under which this provision is going to be of much practical good.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman after the recent Division is in such a chastened mood, and I hope the House will proceed quickly before other events happen so that we may get many of these Amendments allowed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 18, line 1, leave out the word "aforesaid."—(Mr. Stanley.)

5.21 p.m.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I beg to move, in page 18, line 21, after the word "agriculture," to insert the words "or in the business of a travelling showman."
I think travelling showmen should really come under the class of agriculture because the mileage that their vehicles make in a year is not more than 400 or 500 miles, they do not occupy the road very much, their loads are always the same and the safety of their vehicles is provided for under the Road Act.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The effect of this would be to place the travelling showman in the same position as the agriculturist in regard to a bias being exercised towards him in the matter of the keeping of records. We think the travelling showman is in very much the same position as the agriculturist inasmuch as he only uses the highway in a limited way. It is because we believe the Amendment is an essentially fair one, and not because we are in the least afraid of the result of a Division, that we are willing to accept the Amendment.

Mr. LOGAN: Acceptance of this would not be applicable to any Cabinet Minister going by motor car, would it?

Amendment agreed to.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, after the word "period," to insert the words "not exceeding six months."
This deals again with a point that was raised in Committee and refers to the provision that, if so required, these documents shall be retained by the licence holder after the normal period at which he is allowed to dispense with them, in view of the fact that when the normal period terminates proceedings may be pending. It was, however, pointed out that the provision is quite indefinite and he might be required to keep the documents for ever. I feel that there is no harm in putting in the limitation of six months, that is, another six months after the time he is normally required to keep them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 31, after the word "and," insert the words:
during the period for which he is required by or under this subsection to preserve a record.

In page 18, line 31, leave out the words "during that period."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Enforcement of obligation to maintain goods vehicles in serviceable condition.)

Amendments made:

In page 19, line 37, leave out the words "continue in" and insert instead thereof the words "come into."

In page 19, line 27, leave out the word "after" and insert instead thereof the word "upon."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 20, line 8, to leave out from the word "examiner" to the end of the sub-section and to insert instead thereof the words:
if he is satisfied that the vehicle is fit for service.
This will enable the examiner to withdraw his prohibition if he considers that it was not justified.

Amendment agreed to.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 20, line 16, to leave out the words "on the matter being referred to him," and to insert instead thereof the words:
within forty-eight hours of such application being made shall examine the vehicle, and.
The object of this is to deal with the position that arises when the examiner has examined a motor vehicle and the result of his examination does not meet with the approval of the owner and he is given the right under sub-section (7) to apply to the certifying officer and have it examined by him. There is no limitation as to the time when this examination may take place. When the matter was raised in Committee, the Minister said it might necessitate the appointment of more examiners and might run to some expense, and I daresay he may be right over that, but it does not seem to me to be a matter of very much account to have one or two extra certifying officers if it is going to meet the convenience of licence holders. The point that the Minister made was that the words in the Bill are exactly the same as those in the Road Traffic Act, and he said he had had no complaints of delay under that Act when these examinations were required. I have here a copy of correspondence referring to a case where the owner of a vehicle at Yeovil applied to the certifying officer to have it examined on 25th May. On 16th June it had not been examined, so he wrote to the manufacturers. They in turn wrote to the Minister and the correspondence culminates with a letter from the owner of the vehicle dated 22nd June in which he states:
Your action has had immediate effect. An inspector has been here this morning and given the bus a four years' licence.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the correspondence. This was a few days before the Minister assured us in Committee that there were no complaints under the 1930 Act.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member has given me the correspondence without the letter that I wrote.

Mr. ROBERTS: You have all the correspondence.

Mr. STANLEY: It has been removed from the bundle.

Mr. ROBERTS: I assure the Minister that I have not seen any correspondence except that which is there. In any case, there was a delay of three weeks, which is a very serious matter for a man who has to make his living either by using an omnibus or a commercial motor vehicle. I am only asking—and I think the House will consider that it is very reasonable—that where a man has exercised his right to have his vehicle examined by the certifying officer, there should be some limitation as to the length of time the officer can sit upon the case. If the Minister cannot accept 48 hours, I hope that he will accept some limitation of time and so give protection to these people.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I think that it is a little unfortunate, if the hon. Gentleman was to depend almost entirely for his arguments upon a case which was brought to my notice, that he did not give me notice that he intended to raise it. It would have been possible for me to have been present here with all the correspondence in the case. The correspondence which my hon. Friend has handed to me lacks one very important document, which is the reply I sent to Sir John Thorneycroft, who first raised the matter with me. Without that notice I can only speak subject to my imperfect memory, but my recollection of the case is that, having inquired into it, I found that the delay was entirely the fault of the applicant, who had, as far as I remember, mistaken something which he had to do.
On giving that explanation to Sir John Thorneycroft, he expressed himself satisfied that in this case it was not the fault of the examiner at all. I only wish that my hon. Friend had given me notice in order that I could have been able to produce that correspondence for certain, but, as I have explained to the House, subject to the imperfections of my memory, that is my recollection of the case, and therefore it was not in any way due to the bad or slow machinery of the 1930 Act.
With regard to the actual Amendment, it must be obvious to hon. Members that a limitation of 48 hours within which a certifying officer must inspect a vehicle is quite impossible. One can see circumstances arising at week-ends and during holidays when such limitation could in no circumstances he observed. As I pointed out to the Committee—and I must point it out again—whatever number of hours you chose to put into an Act of Parliament, it would necessitate keeping a staff of officials far greater than the ordinary business would require. If you had a, staff which normally must finish all its examinations within an interval of three or four days fixed by Parliament as the statutory period within which it ought to be done, you would immediately have to make provision for unforeseen circumstances, the illness of an inspector or the possibility that in one area there was suddenly a large number of cases, in order that you should not break the Act of Parliament. I can assure the House that in this weighing of the disadvantages to the applicant between any delay in this process or any extra expense he himself may have to incur, we shall be very careful to do all we can to help, but to accept either this Amendment or any Amendment on these lines would, I feel sure, only involve the licence holder in a great deal of unnecessary expense, without any corresponding advantage. If the House wishes, as I am sure it will, the assurance that this work will be done as rapidly as possible, and that all possible inconvenience will be spared to the licence bolder, I can certainly give it with the greatest pleasure.

Mr. ROBERTS: In view of the explanation of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to assure him that the fact that he has not had the correspondence before is
no fault of mine. I received it only this morning; and no discourtesy is intended.

Mr. STANLEY: I have known my hon. Friend sufficiently long to realise that he is the last person from whom I should get discourtesy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made; In page 20, line 30, leave out from the word "person," to the word "at," in line 32, and insert instead thereof the words:
drives a goods vehicle carrying goods, or causes or permits a goods vehicle carrying goods to be driven, on a road.
In line 34, leave out the words "on summary conviction," and insert instead thereof the words:
be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act and."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Transfer of licences prohibited.)

5.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 21, line 37, to leave out from the word "for," to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
enabling a person carrying on the business of the holder of a licence to continue for the time being to use the authorised vehicles in the event of the death, incapacity, bankruptcy, or liquidation of the holder, or of the appointment of a receiver or manager in relation to the business.
This is a Government Amendment intended to make the meaning which we had in view more clear. The wording of the Clause, as it is proposed to be amended, will enable regulations to be made covering the whole period between the time that the licence holder ceases to be responsible and the application for a new licence by the person prepared to carry on the business.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Accounts of licensing authorities and Appeal Tribunal.)

Amendments made: In page 22, line 29, leave out the word "Appeal."

In line 30, leave out the word "their," and insert instead thereof the word "its."

In line 31, leave out the word "them," and insert instead thereof the word "it."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 24.—(Power to prohibit or restrict use of vehicles on certain roads.)

5.40 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 24, line 32, after the word "user," to insert the words "or access to premises."
This Amendment is made in response to an appeal from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts) to make it clear that we should have power, if we make these orders in respect of roads, to deal with access to premises which may be situated upon them.

Amendment agreed to.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I beg to move, in page 24, line 33, to leave out the words "all roads of any such class," and to insert instead thereof the words "such unclassified roads."

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: On a point of Order. Is it your intention, Sir, to leave out the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman, and the names of two other hon. Gentlemen to Clause 23—in page 24, line 17, to leave out from the word "prejudice," to the word "to," in line 18?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): My instructions are that Mr. Speaker has not selected that Amendment.

Mr. GUY: The object of the Amendment which I have just moved is to confine the operation of the Clause to unclassified roads. The point does not need any elaboration. It was discussed fully in Committee upstairs, and was resisted by the Minister. There is a very important principle involved which is, that the main roads in the country should be as free as possible from any restriction even by the Minister of Transport himself. There may be justification for the operation of the Clause on unclassified roads, but excessive wear and tear of the highway does not apply to the main roads as it does to the unclassified roads. Thanks to the great improvement in the standard of road engineering in recent years, the main roads can stand up to the wear and tear of ordinary traffic without any appreciable damage being done. That fact is obvious to all users of the King's highway. The case is different with regard to the unclassified roads.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid that I cannot draw this great division of principle between classified and unclassified roads. They are both the King's high-way, and, as far as is consistent with the public interest, they both ought to be as free as possible. Therefore, I can see no ground of principle for excluding one and including the other within the scope of the powers, not of the Minister, as my hon. Friend said in moving the Amendment, but of this House and of another place, because I introduced an Amendment in Committee which makes the order of the Minister dependent upon an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. When my hon. Friends realise that that order can only eventuate after consultation with the new Transport Advisory Council, upon which local authorities, as well as users of the road, are largely represented, I think they will feel that the safeguards attached to the use of this necessary power are ample for the protection of the users of the road.

5.45 p.m.

Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: The question was raised originally in Committee very seriously, but most of us were entirely satisfied by the way the Minister met us. It is well to emphasise the point that the matter is left in the hands of this House to be decided. I do not think that anyone could desire anything better than that.

Mr. GUY: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to with-draw the Amendment, but before doing so, I should like to say—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Member has already asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5 46 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 25, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and".
An Amendment similar to this was moved in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul). Although I sym-
pathised entirely with his intention, which is to ensure that this House and another place shall get full notice of these orders before they are asked to pass a Resolution confirming them, I pointed out that there was a contrary precedent in the Road Traffic Act, and I thought it would be a pity to depart from it. I must confess that my hon. and learned Friend was able to show me a precedent in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which was entirely on all fours with the Amendment he was moving. In those circumstances, as it is possible that whichever way we word it we shall not differ from the Road Traffic Act, 1930, I have put down this Amendment to meet my hon. and learned Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 16, leave out the words "in the case of a first offence";

In line 18, leave out the word "offence," and insert instead thereof the word "conviction."—[Mr. Stanley.]

5.48 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I beg to move, in page 26, line 3, after the word "section," to insert the words:
including the giving of public notice by the council of their intention to make an order.
This is a very necessary Amendment. It would do no harm to the Bill, but would provide a very valuable safeguard by making public the intention of the council that they propose to make an order. I commend it to the Minister, and I hope he will see his way to accept it.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.49 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The question of procedure in connection with these orders made by local authorities was very fully discussed in Committee, and it was generally agreed that an Amendment such as this was not required. It is not so much a question of the Amendment doing no harm, but whether it is any good, and it seems to me that it would be a mistake to lay down certain procedure with regard to one point, which is to be settled by the local authorities, and not to another. The matter will be dealt with by regulations, and the regulations will
provide for the giving of proper notice by the council of their intention to make an order. It must be remembered that if objections to any order made by a council are taken by a sufficient number of persons, the objection will come to the Minister, and if he considers it desirable a public inquiry will be held. I do not think that this Amendment is required. We could not accept it in any case in its present form.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 25.—(Amendment of 20 and 21 Geo. 5. c. 43, s. 19.)

6.51 p.m.

Mr. TOM SMITH: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This Clause alters considerably the language of the procedure under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The Minister will be aware that in that Section any application for a variation of the times has to be made by a joint body in the industry. This Clause makes It possible for an application to be made either by the employers' organisation or the workers' organisation. It therefore takes away the proviso that the application must be made by a joint body. The Road Traffic Act has only been in operation for two and a half years and we on this side of the House feel that no sufficient evidence has been brought forward to justify this alteration. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), who has gone to considerable trouble to be here this afternoon in order to deal with this Amendment, in moving this new Clause upstairs said that some of the unions concerned had held the employers' organisation to ransom with regard to application for a variation under Section 19 of the Act of 1930, but the trade unions concerned deny that absolutely. They say that they consented to two variations of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, and those variations were ordered by the Minister, after he had consulted the industrial court.
Those two variations passed out in March of this year, I think. One section of the industry, I believe the passenger section, made a joint application, which was conceded, but the workers' organisation in the goods section refused to co-operate with the employers in making this variation. Presumably, be-
cause the application was not made jointly we get an alteration of the language of the section in the Act of 1930 in the language of Clause 25 of this Bill. The unions did not hold the employers up to ransom, nor did they threaten to do so. What actually happened was this, that under the variation that was given in 1930, or in early 1931, when the workers agreed to join with the employers to apply for that variation, they were promised that if they did so the employers would agree to the setting up of certain joint machinery for dealing with the many problems that confront the industry; but when the employers had got the variation they refused to carry out their promise, even though it was common knowledge in the industry that certain parts of the variation were being violated by the employers. Therefore when the workers were asked again by the employers to join with them, they refused, because they felt that they had not had a square deal with regard to the previous application.
Simply because a body of workers, rightly, refused to join with the employers, we have the Minister coming along in a new Bill and completely reversing the language of the Section in the Act of 1930. We say that no case has yet been put up for this alteration. I think the Minister will agree that since the Armistice there has been a good deal of pleading for co-operation between the representatives of capital and trade unions, and that has reflected itself in more than one Act of Parliament providing that there shall be joint application before any variation is made. Here we have the unions being flouted. It appears to us that the Minister, if I may say so with all respect, has listened too much to the employers in this case and yielded to their point of view. We say that the language of 1930 is all right for the purpose. Representatives of the workers are prepared to co-operate with the employers when they are satisfied that they are getting a square deal. The unions concerned feel very keenly about this alteration and we hope that the Minister will see his way to delete the Clause and to allow the language of the Act of 1930 to have a fair chance. We say that two and a-half years of the Road Traffic Act is an insufficient time to justify any alteration. We are satisfied that up
to now there has not been sufficient evidence brought forward to justify the change.
The Minister said in Committee that it might be that the workers' organisation would say to the employers "Unless you agree with us that all men shall be members of the trade union, we shall not join with you in this application." I am informed that up to now no such thing has happened, but I will be perfectly frank with the Minister and the House by saying that if such a thing had happened I should have sought to justify it, because in an industry like the transport industry, where collective bargaining is the accepted principle, it is essential that you should have the workers in that industry within the unions, so that their point of view can be put forward whenever the occasion requires. A non-union man has no right to take the advantages gained by the unions without taking his share in contributing towards the getting of those advantages. There has been no case of the kind that the Minister quoted in Committee. There has Men no holding of the employers to ransom. We hope that the Minister will see his way to delete this Clause and to allow the Section of the 1930 Act to operate.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
It has been made perfectly clear to the House that the railway magnates and the other magnates are to be congratulated because the Minister has met them. He has not met any of our wishes up to date. Labour has appealed in vain to him. We had an Amendment to provide that the examiners should be highly skilled men but the Chairman would not allow it to be moved. It was ruled out of order. We also made an appeal to the Minister, in vain when we asked that the fair wages clause should be recognised. That was turned down. If, as the Minister said, this matter affects only a few individuals, it would be a different matter, but Harrods and Lyons and other "C" licence holders are away with their advantage. It is not a few individuals; it means that many individuals will have a great advantage over other people.
We have been far too kind in dealing with the Minister of Transport. We are appealing to him to leave the 1930 Act as it is. This is a new business, and the
legislation dealing with it is new. The Act of 1930 has only just been passed. Under it, the employers of labour and the trade unions directly affected make a joint application, but the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) comes along, and in the most scientific fashion I have ever known, slips through an Amendment in Committee by which he inserts the word "or," and the Bill now means that the employers can come along quite independently of the workmen and make an application. The desire of the Labour movement is to have peace in industry, and they have had to surrender time and time again in order to get peace; but now, when it suits a certain section of employers, they get the hon. Member for Huddersfield to come forward and drive a wedge into the industrial movement of this country. We shall have rival factions set up and do away with all negotiations. We have been successful in avoiding trouble in this country for some time, and if ever there was a time when we should strain every nerve to keep peace in industry it is now, and in this particular industry, on the roads and the rails of our country, on our ships and our canals, and, in the immediate future, in the air.
This Bill was drafted for the express purpose of trying to organise this new industry which was in such a chaotic condition, and it was brought forward by the Minister of Transport at what was supposed to be the opportune time; at a time when it was essential that we should take stock and see that everything was in the best possible condition, so that when the wheels of industry are set humming again we shall be in a position to take advantage of the improved conditions. We have this Bill, which has the blessing of every section of the House except Labour. Those who are best able to judge tell us that as far as the workers are concerned it might just as well not reach the Statute Book, because it is not going to serve any useful purpose to them. This Clause makes their condition even worse. If all employers were decent and could be approached at all times, the position would be quite different. We should not need Acts of Parliament. But we have employers of labour in this country, and in this business, who are as ruthless a set of employers as ever drew the breath of life.
If you travel from the City of Glasgow in an omnibus to the Hamilton Division, a distance of 30 miles, you find that the conductresses are not allowed to sit down. I have asked them repeatedly to sit down when they have been in a state of collapse owing to the heat. They have to stand the whole of the journey, unless they take a risk and sit down. They are not doing anything, they have punched all the tickets and collected all the money, but they have to stand in this hot sultry weather, and they are enjoying just as good weather there as you are getting in London. The penalty for sitting down is that they are laid off for one day, that is, they lose a day's pay; and because these girls have taken this risk, being so desperate, they are now to be laid off for two days for daring to sit down. I would like to see the daughters of Members of Parliament being up against a situation like that. These are the daughters of my class who are being treated in this fashion, and the Minister of Transport is going to be responsible for the continuation of these conditions because he is allowing bad employers a way out. The bad employer, the ruthless individual, can steal a march on the good employer; he can cut down prices, with the result that the good employer, through sheer force of economic circumstances, has to follow the conditions imposed by the bad employer. For these reasons, I appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment. He has accepted no Amendments from us, and there is no denying the fact that no Opposition ever dealt more kindly with a Minister than we have both to-day and in Committee. Surely we should get some concession for the working classes.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has exaggerated considerably the effect of this Clause. In reply to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), I suggest that it, was inserted in the interests of the employés of road haulage firms. That may be argued from two points of view. First, that by the insertion of this Clause the employés, no less than the employers, now have the right to make an independent appeal to the Minister of Transport for a variation of the conditions of labour as laid down in
Section 19 of the 1930 Act. That, surely, is an advantage to them. But on other and more important grounds it may be argued that the insertion of the Clause is in defence of the employés, and is not inserted merely in the interests of employers. The hon. Member for Normanton said that no case had been made out for the contention that the employers had been held to ransom. I do not want to dispute his facts, but I will indicate the sort of thing which has come to my notice. Section 19 of the 1930 Act lays down in general terms the hours of labour for a man employed on these road wagons. They are allowed to work 66 hours per week, if the employer employs them to the full extent. It suits a good many employers not to employ their men for 66 hours per week; they would rather employ them for fewer hours, and vary the conditions under which they work.
After the passing of the Act of 1930 a certain batch of employers desired to make an application to the Minister to vary the conditions laid down. In the first instance they secured the assent of the employés' representatives and obtained a variation of the Act of 1930. The effect of that was that, instead of working their men 66 hours per week, they undertook in return for that concession to work them a good deal less. That variation came to an end in March of this year. The employers said, "It is good for the employés as well as for us; we will renew the application." Let me make it clear that the employés wanted the variation to be continued. But the employers found that the trade union would not unite with them in making the application. The trade union said, "If we join with you, we want you to do certain things on our behalf."
The hon. Member for Normanton has suggested that that was in pursuance of a bargain made when the original application was made. I do not know whether that is true or not, and I am not going to contradict it, but if it is true it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. It would be quite wrong for an employer, once he made an application for a variation of terms under Section 19 on behalf of his employés and in the interests of his own business, to allow extraneous considerations to be brought in. If such a bargain was made it was a very wrong bargain to make. But I do not think it
has anything to do with the issue. The position then was that the employers found they were unable to make this application on behalf of their own employés and their own behalf because the trade union would not join that with them in making that application unless they consented to certain other conditions that the trade union wanted to impose—conditions which had nothing to do with the issue at all. What is the consequence? The employer is faced either with the prospect of breaking the law in his own interests and the interests of his men, or with suggesting some alteration of the Act as is here made.
I think it is a perfectly proper and reasonable alteration that, instead of an application being made jointly by the employers and the employés, it may be made by either. There are very considerable safeguards against such an application for a variation of the terms of Section 19 being granted too easily. The Minister may make a variation only if the matter has been referred to the Industrial Court for advice, and provided he is satisfied that such a variation will not be detrimental to the public safety. I think, therefore, that it is quite wrong and false to argue, first, that this is an alteration of the Act of 1930 that is detrimental to the interests of the employés in this industry. I suggest that it is is an alteration definitely in their interests on at least two different counts, and that to introduce such matters as trade union methods on this question of road transport has nothing to do with the issue, and that the House would be well advised to reject the Amendment.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) has put plainly before the House the difficulties that arise in this matter. I must confess that, from my own point of view, I regarded this matter as a matter of principle and that I have done so ever since, very early in my conduct of the Ministry, it was brought to my notice. This inquiry by the Industrial Court is supposed to relate entirely to the question of the hours of drivers, and in fact depends, before it can ever be heard at all, on agreement, which may in its turn depend on quite other factors. I am not going into the history of the past few months, nor am I going to apportion blame and
say whether this side or that side was held up to ransom, but it is obvious that under this system that possibility is inevitable. I think it is entirely wrong that the Industrial Court should be debarred from a consideration of this question of hours simply because one side or the other is making use of its power to obstruct the application for the sake of getting some other advantage.
Whether or not we agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on the question whether all people should be in trade unions, does not matter. I am sure he will agree that the way he wants to see people brought into the unions is by persuading them that the proper place for them to be is inside the trade unions. The hon. Member does not really want to see unwilling people brought into trade unions, because the employer is faced with the choice of either having to insist on these men joining the union or losing the right to apply for these lower hours. Because I recognised that this raises a question of principle, as soon as I saw my hon. Friend's Amendment on the Paper I communicated with those concerned and reported that it seemed to me that it was impossible to resist this Amendment. I have already informed the House that I am meeting Mr. Bevan and a deputation this week, and he will raise this subject. I hope that we shall be able to achieve some result. Frankly, I say at once that I think that, this having been fine, this possibility of blackmail, let us say, hung over the heads of employers, having been removed, it is now up to them to do something in their turn to meet the union. In my discussions with Mr. Bevan I shall be only too glad to put myself at the disposal of both parties and see whether we cannot come to some agreement on that very unfortunate difference which has prevented this application hitherto being put before the Industrial Court.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: We are indebted to the Minister for the fact that he is going to meet Mr. Bevan to deal with this matter, together with the other matter which we discussed earlier in the afternoon. But I think the Minister is much too sensitive in dealing with this particular matter. In his closing remarks he referred to the question of blackmail.
As far as I know there has been no such suggestion at all.

Mr. STANLEY: I made that perfectly plain. I am not saying that any such thing has happened, but it must be obvious to hon. Members that if anyone wanted to use blackmail they could do so. That I consider to be undesirable.

Mr. HALL: I am sure that the Minister in dealing either with the employers or the trade unions will find that they are not going to use any Section of any Act of Parliament for the purpose of blackmailing one side or the other. The case upon which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) put this Amendment down in Committee is known, and it is the one case that has been referred to since this Section of the 1930 Act has been in operation. The Minister said in Committee that he was not basing his acceptance of the Amendment on the one case. Knowing the case as I do, I do not think he could base his reason for the acceptance of the Amendment upon the case which was referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. Let us see what the case actually is. The Road Traffic Act came into operation in 1931. The employers' associations on the goods side and the passenger side met. There was agreement at the first meeting to make application for variation of the hours. That application was made and it was agreed to. The variation was to come into operation on 1st April; that was fixed by the Minister. A joint application for variation was made by the employers' association and the trade union on the goods side, and a joint application was also made by the passenger side. The Minister, on the advice of the Industrial Court, agreed to variations in both cases. These variations ran for a period of two years.
When the discussion took place between the employers' association and the trade union on the goods side it was understood that an attempt would be made to set up joint machinery in order to enable the trade to deal with its problems in an organised way. It was agreed between the workmen's representatives and the employers' representatives that a joint council should be set up to deal with any matter which
might arise in connection with their industry. When the variations were through, no attempt along these lines was made by the employers at all. No attempt has been made to keep within Section 19 and the variations. Earlier this year the Minister intimated to the associations and the trade unions that the variations expired on 31st March, and he asked for any observations. Meetings were then held between the association and the trade unions on the passenger side, and it was decided to submit an application for further variation. There was no difficulty as far as the passenger side was concerned.
The case was carried to the Industrial Court and later the Minister made an order for new variations to run for a period of two years. On the goods side the trade unions and the employers' association had meetings, but in view of the practice of the employers during the past two years and the failure to implement the promise which was made two years ago, and their refusal seriously to consider the question of machinery for the industry, which had been agreed to two years previously, it was held that the trade union should not agree to the application being made for variation. I should have thought that the Minister himself would have taken the whole of the circumstances into consideration. If he cared he could have consulted both sides. I am not asking him to consult only the Road Transport Federation or the employers' side, but to get the two sides together and to see whether it is not possible to bring about an agreement whereby this machinery, which the employers two year ago held was desirable but never put into operation, could be set up. Had that been done there would have been no difficulty. I do not anticipate any difficulty in the future.
I am sure that if the Minister had had considerable experience in negotiating either with the employers' side or the trade union side he would see how right it is that joint applications should be made to an Industrial Court for a variation of this kind. What is going to happen? All kinds of applications will be made by all kinds of organisations for a variation of hours. There will be an application and an objection. The result will be chaos. There has been no attempt to blackmail either from the employers' side or the workmen's side. Instead of
doing what he is doing, it would have been better if the Minister had got the parties together and had tried to overcome the difficulty. Two years' experience is not long enough to try out the Section of the Act of Parliament. One difficulty which has arisen as a result of the variation of the Act is not sufficient to justify the Minister in coming to the House and asking the House to agree to a variation of the Act. I hope that the Minister will agree to the Amendment

that has been moved, and will try to get the trade unions and the employers' federation together to agree. Surely it is not to be said that pressure has to be brought to bear on one side or the other to snatch some slight advantage.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'organisation' in line 13, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 30.

Division No. 276.]
AYES.
[6.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Milne Charles


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, William Shephard


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moss, Captain H. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
O'Connor, Terence James


Aske, Sir Robert William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Petherick, M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Pato, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'prn, Bilston)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pike, Cecil F.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanes)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Potter, John


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hales. Harold K.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Blindell, James
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Borodale, Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harbord, Arthur
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Briant, Frank
Hartland, George A.
Ray, Sir William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey. George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Roberts. Aled (Wrexham)


Burghley, Lord
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Burnett, John George
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Butt, Sir Alfred
Holdsworth, Herbert
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Carver, Major William H.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Spender, Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Clarke, Frank
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Spene, William Patrick


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Conant. R. J. E.
Lambert. Rt. Hon. George
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred
Stevenson, James


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lewis, Oswald
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cross, R. H.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Summersby, Charles H.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Denman. Hon. R. D.
Mabane, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Doran, Edward
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Drewe, Cedric
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Duggan, Hubert John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Weymouth, Viscount


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McKeag, William
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertl'd)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Wise, Alfred R.


Fermoy, Lord
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Withers, Sir John James


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough. E.)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Marsden, Commander Arthur



Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Mr. Womersley.


NOES.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cove, William G.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Cape, Thomas
Dagger, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Davies, Rhys John (Wosthoughton)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Healy, Cahir
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Hirst, George Henry
McEntee, Valentine L.
Thorne, William James


Jenkins, Sir William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Kirkwood, David
Parkinson, John Allen



Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, Gabriel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G.




Macdonald.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in page 26, line 13, after the word "such," to insert the word "national."
The effect of this Amendment would be to make the words in the Clause read:
or on an application by any such national organisation.
The Minister is altering the whole bearing of the system of organisations being able to get interviews with him on these questions, so much so as to make it possible for any single organisation to make an application, and there is no definition in the Clause to indicate what is to be the standing of such an organisation. It can of course he either a workmen's or an employers' association but we believe that it ought to be an organisation of national standing. The Minister in agreeing to meet such an organisation would know that they were placing before him a case on behalf of a large number of people and that in hearing them he was not wasting his time. At the moment there are all kinds of organisations in this trade. In connection with the road and rail traffic there are many subsidiary organisations all of which probably think that they have as much right to be heard as the larger organisations. While they may hold that opinion, it must be apparent that if a body of this kind is in a frail state owing to lack of numbers or weakness of organisation, its representations can really have no effective bearing upon a case at issue.
We contend that the organisations to be included in this provision should be responsible organisations whether of workers or of employers and that they should be national organisations in the full sense of the term. If an organisation is not able to speak nationally it can only speak for a section, and if we are going to put section against section we shall have greater trouble and difficulty on these questions than. we have had hitherto. The Minister ought to give serious consideration to this Amendment. We are not putting it forward in any grandiose manner but we feel that there is something lacking in this Clause, if it
merely provides that the Minister is to meet any kind of organisation regardless of standing or representative character. The organisations with which he deals ought to carry the weight of the whole body of people concerned, whether employers or workmen, and ought to have a national status.

6.42 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot hold out any hope of accepting this Amendment. In the first place, it would be extremely difficult to define "national." Any body might call itself "national," and I do not know how the hon. Member would propose to define the word.

Mr. PARKINSON: A national organisation is one which is accepted as being national in the sense that it speaks nationally for the particular section in industry with which it a concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Accepted by whom?

Mr. PARKINSON: By the Minister of Labour.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Then he is to settle whether an organisation is national or not. Is that the point? We do not see any reason why a body of workers or a body of employers, say in Yorkshire, or Lancashire, or in my own county of Durham, should not be able to make representation with regard to the period of driving laid down in Section 19 of the Act of 1930, if they find that their own particular industries are concerned in one way or another. It is true, of course, that any variations sanctioned by the Minister would apply to the whole country, but we cannot see why a section of the community should not voice their opinions on what they believe should be applicable to the whole community, or as to what they regard as necessary for the whole community. We cannot accept an Amendment of this kind which in our opinion would be unnecessary and unwise.

6.43 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I have seldom heard a less "thought-out" answer to a pro-
posal of this kind. The hon. and gallant Gentleman apparently does not attach the slightest importance to whether questions of this sort are settled nationally or are settled district by district. I thought he was already well acquainted with the very large and vital issues which arise on this question. It has long been a subject of debate and I thought that by now there was almost universal agreement as to the desirability of having a national point of view and not a sectional point of view, placed before the Government or before the Ministry on these issues. The system which has been encouraged, as regards both workers and employers' organisations has been in the direction of bringing them into great national bodies capable of representing the united opinion of one side or the other on any point at issue. It has been held undesirable in the cotton industry, for instance, to have the employers in one little town speaking with one voice, those in another town speaking with another voice, and those in a third town saying something different from all the rest, nobody knowing which voice represents the view of the general body of employers.
It has been thought desirable and necessary to create national bodies capable of presenting to the nation and the Government the point of view of cotton manufacturers or steel manufacturers or any other section of employers. In exactly the same way it has been thought desirable to get together the operatives or workers in organisations which can represent the view of all the workers in the industry, and where you are dealing, as you are here, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, with points which will be decided, not for one section of the country or another, but nationally—a word which I think everybody understands who has ever thought about this matter at all—the question is, Do you want, in arriving at that settlement, to get the national view of the employers and the workers, or do you want to get the sectional views from Cornwall, Lancashire, Scotland, South Wales, London, and everywhere else, all of which may be different? I should have thought that, as a mere matter of the convenience of the Minister in consulting in a matter of this sort, he would have desired, first of all, to get all these smaller interests in the country to one
national view, in order that they might present it to him and he might know how to act upon it.
It seems to me that he will encourage the breaking-up of national organisations into district organisations, and set back the clock of progress as regards conciliation in the whole of the industries which are concerned here. This Clause deals with joint industrial councils, conciliation boards, and similar bodies, and therefore the refusal of this Amendment is a direct encouragement to break clown a national system of conciliation and to encourage sectional systems of conciliation, the very thing which everybody who cares about conciliation has been trying to combat for years past. The excuse which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives for not accepting the Amendment seems to me to be highly unsatisfactory.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. CAPE: I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision because he cannot have seen the danger that may result from it. He is importing an entirely new principle into these matters. In the course of his short statement, he claimed the right of any small part of the community to make representations to the Ministry, and he said that the general body of the country would have to abide by the decision arrived at on the representation of that small body of opinion. It may be a small trade union in some outlying part, and there may be certain things in that locality which make them ask for a certain change to be made which may not be acceptable or in any way favourable to the rest of the country, yet the Minister, on their representations, can make the change for the whole of the country. Again, the employers in a part of the country may make a. representation to the Minister, and the obligation is placed on all the employers throughout the country to fall into line with his decision, arrived at on the representation of a small body of people only. I suggest that if that is to be the situation, we are laying down a principle for all industries, of all types, which will eventually lead to considerable disorder, because any small section, either of workmen or employers, can come along, make representations to the Minister, and get a decision, and that decision will affect the whole of the people in that industry.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I hope the Minister will consider the possibility of adopting the word suggested here, because I am certain that it is wise, in the national interest, to do all that we can to encourage national organisation, whether of employers or employés. One of the complaints made against this country in the past has been that it is so difficult to get an effective organisation in regard to industrial matters generally, because we have in some respects a chaotic system of organisation among both employers and employed. We want to favour these national organisations, because the great national trade unions have great responsibility, they have a great deal more experience, and can look at things from a broad, national point of view; and anything which tends to encourage sectional interests in different parts of the country is directly against the general trade interest of the country. Whether it is a national joint industrial council, or a trade union, or any other form of conciliation machinery, I believe, from my own personal experience, that it would be very wise indeed for this House to give every encouragement to national organisation. The more we place power and responsibility in a large sense in the hands of trade unionists, the more they will respond to it and the more they will be able to play their part in the constructive building-up of industry in this country. I hope, therefore, the Minister will consider whether there is any really serious objection to putting in this word.

7.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not suppose the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) would ever consider anything that anybody else had thought could be well thought-out if it disagreed with what he thought. That is his usual line of argument. But I think hon. Members opposite are rather exaggerating the case. It seems to me that all that is wanted is that bodies of representative people, whether employers or employed, should be able to initiate a movement for a variation, and then that the Minister should say whether he considers that any such change is desirable and how much weight he should give to the views of any body that approaches him. Hon Members opposite need not
think for a moment that the Minister will be led away by any little sectional body that comes to him, but he will, if necessary, as a result of this approach, give a decision—

Mr. CAPE: Without consulting anybody else.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Minister is asked, by some body of workers or employers, not necessarily calling itself national, though very likely representing national opinion, to make a variation, and if he considers that variation desirable in the interests of the whole community, he should be in a position to make it. My point is that there is no reason why it should not be possible for representative local organisations to bring forward their views to the Minister.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: It may not be a great local organisation; it may be half-a-dozen disgruntled people, and the reason my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) takes the view that he has done is that he belongs to one of the greatest and strongest trade unions in the country. Neither that trade union nor the trade union Which represents the medical profession would ever allow that their interests should be discussed and determined without their being heard. There are lots of little tin-pot organisations up and down the country, representing all kinds of points of view, from the doctrine of the laying-on of hands and making you better that way, to those of psycho-analysis; and the British Medical Association would see the Government in Jericho before it allowed them to legislate on a medical matter without the British Medical Association being heard. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would be one of the first to stand at that Box and defend that big national organisation.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM indicated dissent.

Mr. LANSBURY: I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman better than he knows himself, because I pay attention to what he says in this House, and I know that he always supports a certain kind of vested interest and never supports the interests of the working class when expressed through a national organisation.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Not at all.

Mr. LANSBURY: When we have been discussing the coal situation he has always supported that side which has been opposed to the Miners' Federation on this very issue, and that is that we should have national rather than sectional agreements. In our view, nearly all the trouble in the mining industry is caused because the employers, supported by hon. Members similar to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, have always contended that any small organisation shall

be considered, and not the national organisation. I cannot help feeling that, instead of reproving my hon. and learned Friend, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, from his own point of view of always supporting the big national organisations of the law and medicine, ought to have been on our side.

Question put, "That the word 'national' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 188.

Division No. 277.]
AYES.
[6.56 p.m.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mender, Geoffrey le M.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Healy, Cahir
Parkinson, John Allen


Cove, William G.
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dagger, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.




Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.



NOES.



Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Denville, Alfred
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dickle, John P.
Law, Sir Alfred


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Drewe, Cedric
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Leckie, J. A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lewis, Oswald


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Liddell, Walter S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Llewellin, Major John J.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Aske, Sir Robert William
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ganzoni, Sir John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gibson, Charles Granville
Lyons, Abraharn Montagu


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mabane, William


Borodale, Viscount
Granville, Edgar
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McCorquodale, M. S.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Greases-Lord, Sir Waiter
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Greene, William P. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McKeag, William


Brient, Frank
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grimston, R. V.
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hales, Harold K.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Burghley, Lord
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Burnett, John George
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milne, Charles


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Caporal, Arthur Cecil
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Carver, Major William H.
Harbord, Arthur
Morrison, William Shepherd


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hartland, George A.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
North, Edward T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Connor, Terence James


Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hedgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Clarke, Frank
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Patrick, Colin M.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Pearson, William G.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.


Conant, R. J. E.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cowan, D. M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pike, Cecil F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Potter, John


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cross, R. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pybus, Percy John


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rameden, Sir Eugene


Davies, Maj. Gee. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones. Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Denman, Hon. H. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Ray, Sir William
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Rea, Walter Russell
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsen)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Rantoul Sir Gervais S.
Spens, William Patrick
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Hon. o. F. G. (Westmorland)
Weymouth, Viscount


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Summersby, Charles H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Templeton, William P.
Withers, Sir John James


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thompson, Luke
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Thorp, Linton Theodore



Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Torten, Robert Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smithers, Waldron
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Mr. Womersley.

CLAUSE 26.—(Amendment and extension of 20 & 21 Geo. 5, c. 43, s. 93.)

7.5 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 26, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
In the case of an authorised vehicle being a heavy motor car, this Sub-section shall apply in relation to an attendant employed to assist the driver in the driving or control of the vehicle as it applies in relation to the driver.
Hon. Members opposite have been accusing me during the whole of this Debate of being half-hearted, and never accepting any of their Amendments. From my own point of view, I am afraid my policy has been that of scuttle, and that all the time I have been giving away far too much to all sections of the House. This Amendment is in response to a request made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) during the Committee stage. He put his Amendment in a form which it was impossible to accept, but which was designed to ensure that the provision as to hours should apply not only to drivers and statutory attendants, but to all engaged in the driving or control of the vehicles—if they played some part in the safety of the vehicles they would be entitled to the same protection with regard to hours as that enjoyed by drivers and statutory attendants. It is to meet that request that I move this Amendment.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I am sure that the Minister has done a rather good action here. That was evident by the way he blushed when he came to the Box—it was something out of the ordinary. We are very pleased that he has acceded to the request we put forward in Committee. He will realise it is a step in the right direction, and something which will strengthen the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Forgery, etc., of licences.)

7.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 27, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) The provisions of the preceding Subsection shall apply in relation to a document evidencing the appointment of an examiner or other officer for the purposes of this Part of this Act as they apply in relation to a licence.
The Clause deals with the fraudulent alteration or use of licences. The certificate of appointment has to be examined. It is necessary because hon. Members will recall that by Clause 14 an examiner may be required to produce his authority before examining a vehicle.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 16, after the word "be," to insert the words:
guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act and be."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Interpretation of Part I.)

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 29, line 7, after the word "vehicle," to insert the words:
stage carriage,' 'express carriage,' 'contract carriage,' 'heavy motor car.'
These additional terms have been introduced into the Bill. They are in the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.—(Right of railway company, with approval of Rates Tribunal, to make agreed charges for the carriage of merchandise.)

7.10 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 29, line 14, to leave out the word "section," and to insert instead thereof the words "Part of this Act."

The six Amendments which follow are all drafting Amendments, consequential on the adoption of new interpretation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 29, line 21, leave out the words "Railway Rates."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 29, line 21, to leave out from the word "and," to the second word "the," in line 24,

Sir S. CRIPPS: I think this is not an Amendment arising out of the previous Amendment, but is in order to insert the same words in the new Sub-section.

Mr. STANLEY: That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Further Amendments made: In page 29, line 33, at the end, insert the words:
(3) An agreed charge shall be filed with the Tribunal within seven days after the date of the agreement, and notice of an application to the Tribunal for its approval of the agreed charge shall be given in such manner as the Tribunal may direct.

In page 30, line 2, leave out from the word "charge," to the end of line 4.— [Mr. Stanley.]

7.13 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 30, line 22, to leave out the words "merchandise of the same description as," and to insert instead thereof the words:
the same merchandise as or similar merchandise to.
The subject of the Amendment I now move was discussed at considerable length during the Committee stage. It arose from an Amendment I moved in Committee to meet the wishes of the traders with regard to fears they expressed of a form of undue preference following the granting of these agreed charges. The object of the Amendment was to make it possible for the Railway Rates Tribunal, if it allowed the railways to give to a particular trader an agreed charge, to fix a rate for other traders who applied for such a fixed rate, and this particular definition is a definition which defines the class of trader who will be entitled to this privilege. As I moved the Amendment in the first instance, the trader who might apply to the Tribunal had to apply for a charge for the carriage of merchandise which was of the "same
description" as any merchandise of the agreed charge. These words "same description" were taken out of the Railways Clauses Act of 1845, which deals with equality of charges, and it was on these grounds that I defended their inclusion in the Bill.
It was pointed out in Committee 1888, a more recent Act was that of 1888, dealing with undue preference, and it was suggested that by adopting the wording of the earlier Act I had perhaps, in some way, limited the rights which traders would to-day enjoy under existing law with regard to standard and exceptional rates. My intention was that we. should not deprive them of their existing guarantees, although I was adverse to any suggestion for increasing them. On thinking the matter over between the Committee and Report stages I thought there was some force in the argument that, on the whole, the proper analogy to the present procedure was the procedure with regard to undue preference, and, in view of the fact that the Act was of a later date than that from which I had taken these words, I considered it would be fair if I adopted the wording of the 1888 Act, rather than the wording of the earlier Act. I do not know whether this meets the views of hon. Members who moved Amendments of this kind and desired that they should go further than I was prepared to go. This Amendment will leave the trader in the same position as he is under the Act which deals with undue preference.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 31, line 23, leave out the words "of the same description as," and insert instead thereof the words "which is the same as or similar to."—[Mr. Stanley.]

7.16 p.m.

Mr. CLARRY: I beg to move, in page 31, line 43, at the end, to insert the words:
and if the agreed charge relates to the carriage of merchandise to or from a harbour or dock belonging or leased to the railway company, and in the opinion of the tribunal the making of the agreed charge is likely to place. or has placed, some other harbour or dock belonging or leased to the same railway company at an undue disadvantage as compared with the first-mentioned harbour or dock, the tribunal shall not approve, or shall order the withdrawal of, the agreed charge.
I move this Amendment on behalf of the Newport Corporation, which is
greatly apprehensive as to the effect if the Great Western Railway Company, which has the railway monopoly in that area, and also owns all the docks in South Wales, were to start discriminating as between one port and another in the matter of rates. The Amendment is put down in the hope that it will make the position a little clearer in that respect. I do not, however, wish to press it.

Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I understand that the hon. Member, with his long association with the district, felt that this was a matter which he ought to raise in the House, but I confess I am extremely surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) lending himself to such a revolutionary suggestion as this.

Sir B. PETO: May I mention that my hon. Friend said that he did not intend to press it.

Mr. STANLEY: That does not alter the fact that the hon. Baronet has given great weight to the Amendment, and I have no doubt that he has lent his support to this rudimentary Socialism owing to the commendations that were bestowed on him by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The principle behind the Amendment is that if the railway company owns two docks—it is no question of a railway dock being in competition with another dock—it is not to be allowed to distribute its traffic between the docks as is most convenient for the working of the railway and is, therefore, presumably most convenient to the traders. But the local authorities in whose areas the docks happen to be situated are to be entitled to object to the arrangements the company makes with regard to its own property, and to say that even if it is more inconvenient and more expensive to send traffic to one dock it has to he sent there, for the sake of the local interests. It is a principle that could be extended to railway stations as well as to docks. A local authority may say that whether traders dislike it or not, traffic has to be sent to a station in its area because it will increase the rateable value of the area. I should like to do anything I can to assist my hon. Friend, but this Amendment raises
a principle of too great importance and of too drastic a nature for me, at any rate, who, I am afraid, in comparison with him, am only a right wing Conservative.

7.20 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I must. protest against the hon. Gentleman calling this rudimentary Socialism. It is the worst form of municipal individualism that can be imagined, and I am not at all surprised at the hon. Baronet, with his individualistic views, supporting it. It is exactly the opposite to proper Socialist planning.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. CLARRY: The whole point of the Amendment is to provide against the Great Western Railway endeavouring to shut up Newport altogether. That is a very proper apprehension, and that is the reason the Amendment has been brought forward. The Minister has not assured us that there is nothing to prevent that taking place.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I realise my hon. Friend's reason for moving the Amendment, but I wonder if he understands the implications of it. If we were to interfere with the railway company's management of its own property, it could only be followed by taking over the responsibility for the loss which the railway company might incur in that way. It is for that reason that I still hold that the Amendment is rudimentary Socialism.

Mr. CLARRY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 33, line 29, leave out sub-section (13).—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 31.—(Provisions as to applications and objections by representative bodies.)

Amendment made: In page 33, line 40, leave out the words "Railway Rates."— [Mr. Stanley.]

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 37.—(Transport Advisory Council.)

7.23 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in page 38, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the representatives 4 the interests of labour shall be appointed after consultation with the Minister of Labour.
The Minister of Labour has to a large extent to do with the setting up of this kind of body, and as he is well acquainted with people suitable to act as representatives of labour, he ought to be taken into consultation by the Minister of Transport in making the appointments. It is said that there is more wisdom in two minds than in one, and we think that such consultation will strengthen the hands of the Minister of Transport. We feel that whatever representatives of labour are appointed, they should be appointed with a due sense of responsibility. They should not represent a small class, but should be representative of the whole country. The Minister of Labour has this kind of work before him continuously, and we believe that he will be able to give the Minister of Transport valuable assistance.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: We think that the representatives who are going to sit on this tremendous organisation should represent the interests of the whole trade union movement. We suggest this consultation with the Minister of Labour to ensure that the representatives who will speak on behalf of the employés in this transport organisation shall be men of standing and men who truly represent the labour side of the industry.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I was a, little grieved when I heard my hon. Friend in moving the Amendment say that these appointments ought to be exercised with a due sense of responsibility, and, apparently in order to ensure that, it was necessary to bring in the Minister of Labour. I confess that as a matter of principle I am not very enamoured of putting into an Act of Parliament what is clearly the duty of the Minister. I do not think that anyone could conceive that a Minister of Transport would appoint representatives of this kind without consulting with the Minister of Labour. I was interested to hear a passionate speech delivered by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) only the other day, saying that it was an insult to the Minister to put this kind of thing into a Bill. In that case it was suggested that he should consult with an interest of
which the hon. Member disapproved, but he might not make such a, passionate declamation in regard to an interest of which he did approve. I am afraid I have so got into the habit of making concessions on this Bill that it is difficult for me to refuse anything, and if my hon. Friends really feel that there will be some greater security for the representation of the workers if these words are added, I am prepared to accede to their request in the knowledge that it will mean exactly nothing, because it will only tell me to do what I should always do. I am not sure that the words are happy ones, and it may be necessary to make some drafting Amendment, but with that proviso I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Representative Members of Transport Advisory Council.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment that I shall call is that in the name of the Minister to the First Schedule, but that will not cut out the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), in page 40, line 6, at the end, to insert the words: "Co-operative Union, Limited … 1".

7.27 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: My Amendment is on page 40, line 7, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Schedule, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"Local authorities in England and Wales
4


Local authorities in Scotland
2


Users of mechanically - propelled vehicles
5


Users of horses and horse-drawn vehicles
1


Users of roads other than as above mentioned—



Pedestrians
1


Pedal cyclists
1


Railways
2


Canals (other than canals owned or controlled by a railway company)
1


Coastwise shipping
1


Harbours and docks (other than harbours and docks owned or controlled by a railway company)
1


Labour
3


Trading interests (including agriculture)
5"

This Amendment deals with the Transport Advisory Council which is to be set up under the Bill. I have, as the result of the discussion which took place in Committee, put down a new Schedule
which sets out the representatives to be accorded to different interests upon that council. Hon. Members will realise that in addition to the members set out in the Schedule, the Minister himself will have the right of appointment of three other Members. It would be as well, before we discuss the various claims of various interests which feel themselves not to have been satisfied in the Schedule, that we should see what are the guiding principles which govern the selection of these representatives. First, let me make it plain that the function of this council is, as its name shows, advisory. I have carefully refrained at any point in this Bill from making anything dependent upon the recommendation of the council. Wherever they are called into play by the statute it will be for consultation, and therefore there will never be a question of a majority and a minority, and of my having to accept something from this council which happens to have received the assent of the majority. We have to get away from the idea of counting heads and from trying to base the representation of various interests on a desire to give them majorities.

It being half-past Seven of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Motion made, and Question propoaed,
That, in the case of the Adelphi Estate Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 92, 231, 232, and 258 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper is for the suspension of certain Standing Orders in order that the Adelphi Estate Bill may be taken into consideration forthwith. I understand that some suggestion has been made that this proceeding is unduly rushing the Bill, and I therefore wish to tell the
House that nothing was further from my mind than that when this Motion was put down. It was put down merely in accordance with the ordinary practice. When we come to within a few days of the Recess it is the custom to suspend Standing Orders in the later stages of Private Bills. Perhaps I was a little too optimistic in thinking that after the Debate we had the other night no hon. Member would have anything more to say about the Bill. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Consideration of Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee).

7.32 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 40, line 7, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Schedule, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"Local authorities in England and Wales
4


Local authorities in Scotland
2


Users of mechanically-propelled vehicles
5


Users of horses and horse-drawn vehicles
1


Users of roads other than as above mentioned—



Pedestrians
1


Pedal cyclists
1


Railways
2


Canals (other than canals owned or controlled by a railway company)
1


Coastwise shipping
1


Harbours and docks (other than harbours and docks owned or controlled by a railway company)
1


Labour
3


Trading interests (including agriculture)
5"

I was explaining to the House that there will be no circumstances connected with this Advisory Council in which numerical strength will matter. The whole point is that there should be represented upon this Council all the various interests which it will be necessary for me to consult on these transport matters, and the only thing that we have to ensure is that every such interest will have someone who will be able to give me a real and authoritative opinion upon their particular section of the transport problem. The other consideration, with which, I am sure, every hon. Member will agree, is that the whole utility of this Council
will be defeated if we allow its numbers to become unduly large. I am sure it is the experience of every hon. Member that as soon as a committee becomes too big its utility begins to fall away. The membership begins to be less prized, the interests become more diverse, and it nearly always ends by lacking utility. Therefore, in drawing up the composition of this Advisory Council, I have had to steer a course between these two evils; the evil of having so many members that the Council would not function, or having so few members that certain interests would not be properly represented, would not be able to make their point of view heard, and would, in the end, be apt to quarrel with any advice the Advisory Council tendered.

Already in the Committee stage we have had considerable discussion as to the composition of the Council, and as a result of that discussion, and of the representations made to me since, I have put down a new Schedule making certain changes. I think it will be of use if I detail what the changes are. I have increased the representation of the local authorities in England and Wales from three to four members. That was done in accordance with the principle I have enunciated of the various interests being able to make their point of view heard. That will provide a representative for the great municipalities, a representative for the county councils, one for the rural district councils and one for the urban district councils. With such representation I think the local authorities will be able to express all points of view. I may add that this change was made largely in response to an Amendment moved and an appeal made to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage). I have increased the local authorities' representation in Scotland from one to two members. That concession has been ill requited by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who all the time that he was accusing me of hardness of heart knew that there was on the Order Paper this proof of my essential kindness. Similar representations have been made to me by many of my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies, and I think there was a good case made out that we could not have got one man to represent adequately the interests of the urban and of the rural authorities.

I have increased the number of representatives of the users of the roads from one to two, and spilt them up between pedestrians and pedal cyclists, because it was represented to me that there might be a conflict of interest there. The only conflict I see is that whereas pedestrians travel on the footpath in accordance with the law the others persistently travel on the footpath in defiance of it. During the Committee stage I made it plain that the representative of canals and of harbours and docks should be representative of those undertakings not owned or controlled by railways. I have given another representative to Labour, increasing their representatives from two to three, because I thought that with two members they would be unable adequately to represent the views of all the various sections. I trust that with this additional number, and the close and paternal co-operation of all the unions, they will be able adequately to represent the various points of view. I have increased the representatives of the trading interests, including agriculture, from four to five. I thought that with only four to represent all the trading interests, that is to say, all the users of railways and roads, from the traffic point of view, all over the country, it might be impossible to get all the varying and clashing interests properly represented.

I know that there are various hon. Members who are never satisfied and who, the more I give, ask the more, but I think that hon. Members as a whole will realise that I have made an honest attempt to meet the various claims, keeping in mind what I think is a most important consideration; that if we extend this council too much its utility will disappear, and also keeping in mind that every concession I make to one interest is followed by an application for a similar concession from another interest, on grounds which are similar to those put forward in the first place, and which it is therefore extremely hard for me to refuse.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard)—In page 40, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
Co-operative Union, Limited … 1
can be moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

7.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I would like to thank the Minister for meeting the requirements of the local authorities to the extent of giving an increase of one in the number of their representatives for England and Wales. Of course, we should have liked five, but we thank him for what he has done. I notice that the representation of Scotland has been increased to two, and, therefore, the local authorities' representation will have an additional significance in the meeting of the Advisory Council. As far as the Urban District Councils Association is concerned, and I believe I can speak for the other local authorities, we thank the Minister, and it is not proposed to move the Amendment which had been put down on the Paper.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

7.40 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Co-operative Union, Limited 1
Unfortunately, I was unable to enjoy the Debate that accompanied the consideration of this matter in Committee, but I have paid a little attention to the printed report of the proceedings, and I was pleased to note that on the last day the hon. Gentleman stated that he was not adopting a rigid attitude towards the Amendments that still had to come before the Committee. I trust he still maintains that attitude, and that he will allow his sympathies, if he has any, to accompany him to this stage of the proceedings. I read a speech he made on that occasion, and I appreciate a number of the points that he put forward, and I accept the basis of discussion laid down, namely, that the real arguments to be examined were arguments that would affect some particular type of interest which has a right to expression in these matters. It is from that point of view, and with a real feeling that we have something tangible on which to base our claims, that I move this Amendment to include the Co-operative Union. At one time I did think this Advisory Council
might have powers which it appears they do not possess. I would like to quote the hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to the purposes of the Council:
The purpose of the Council will not be to give me a recommendation which has been carried by a majority and therefore in circumstances which would make the voting strength of a particular interest of great importance, but to enable me to consult them; and there, of course, the important thing will be the strength and vigour with which particular points of view are put forward by the interests, however strong or weak they may be numerically, which are chiefly concerned in the particular matter.
I suggest that here we have an interest which does warrant some consideration being given to us, especially when we bear in mind the fact that the vehicles of this Union are under a control that extends from one part of Great Britain to the other. It is not isolated in one particular group of controlling units or societies, but is capable of being coordinated in such a way that they could be looked upon as a completely national unit. The voting question being excluded from the activities of the Council, I do not see anything which should prevent an expression of opinion by this interest inside this Advisory Council. I have not yet seen the machinery, but it may be possible to ascertain various views from the Co-operative Union, but those views would not have the status they would have if expressed to the Minister within the four corners of the Advisory Council. That is a point to which I would like some attention to be given.
In considering the claim of the Co-operative Union, the Minister said that it would not be the proper place to introduce it under the heading of mechanically-propelled vehicles, and he gave illustrations of the type of heading under which it might be segregated for representation. One would be the private motorist. He gave passenger vehicles as the second illustration and goods vehicles as a third, but he did not specify the other two types that will be included in representation under this Schedule. He suggested that if they were to receive consideration at all, they should be related to the last line which deals with trading interests. If they have to be looked at from that point of view, our case is rather stronger. If general
trading interests have to be taken into consideration, it will be found that the co-operative movement will be in a more hostile field than if it were in any other place. We therefore think that consideration should be given to it in a greater measure than has been the case up to the present time.
We have been asked whether any specific difference can be displayed as between the co-operative movement and large multiple firms. There is one. The multiple firms can ally themselves with organisations created for the purpose of dealing with the transport industry, but that is not a position which is open to the co-operative movement. Therefore, here are interests that will not be able to express themselves through an alliance which is still open to the multiple firms. May I say, although I do not want to press the point, that the fears of the cooperative movement are rather well-grounded? I have paid attention to Part III dealing with the Transport Advisory Council, and I see that it is rather general in its terms. The council is stated to be
for the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister,
but, in addition to that, I notice, in Subsection (7), that the council is to have considerable power. I notice that
The council, so far as it considers it necessary or desirable so to do for the purpose of the proper discharge of its functions, may by notice in writing require any person"—
I presume that that means person or organisation—
to furnish … information.
We have had experience of this before. We had the War-time experience when the co-operative movement were concerned with regard to the supply of material for carrying on their work, and we have had the experience of the inroads made in the standing of the cooperative movement in other directions. Those experiences, and a more recent example, have created the opinion and the feeling that there is danger in the proposals which we are now discussing, and that one of the ways to dispose of the danger is respectfully to ask that the cooperative movement should receive more consideration in so far as representation is concerned.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
We stated our case in Committee on this matter. Just after the Budget Statement that was made in this House, the Government, for the first time in history, has seen fit, to its advantage or otherwise, to tax the cooperative societies of this country and to make an attack upon them in a manner in which those societies have never been attacked before. It is most natural that the Co-operative Movement are anxious to safeguard their interests, and to be more active along such lines than they have ever been before. That is because of the actions of the present Government. The Minister of Transport is part and parcel of that Government, and that is why the Co-operative Movement are anxious that one of the representatives on this Council should be a member of a co-operative society.
I want, at this juncture, to thank the Minister of Transport for the concession he gave me in having two representatives from the local authorities of Scotland. Originally he desired to have only one. for Scotland. I want to draw his attention to the fact that he has increased the last item in the Schedule, relating to labour, from two to three. I appeal' to him that one of these three might come from Scotland, and act as the Scottish representatives. Scotland is distinct from England or Wales. England: has a. Trades Union Congress; so has, Scotland. Wales has none. Scotland has a distinct Labour party. Wales has none. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] It is simply swallowed up in the greater party of England. Scotland has a distinct claim here. We have maintained all along that it has been recognised, in the great Trade Union and Labour move-manta, that Scotland is something apart. The Scottish Labour and Trade Union Movements have asked me, on their behalf, to endeavour to secure that one of the three Labour representatives shall be from Scotland. I hope that the Minister and Scotland will note that many Scottish hon. Members on those Benches do not give us very much assistance when we are putting up a fight on behalf of Scotland.
The same argument is true in regard to the Co-operative Movement. The organi-
sations in the Schedule all have interests to conserve. They all have different points of view that are legitimate as long as the competitive system exists. As I said in my first speech on this Bill, the only way to get round the difficulty is to nationalise the transport system and to incorporate it into our social life. There is no other way of getting rid of the difficulty. At every turn, you find that every organisation is working to safeguard its own particular point of view. It is not we who are responsible for that. The Minister of Transport is essentially representing capitalism and commercialism, and he is trying to run capitalism. That is the idea of this Bill. In trying to do the business, the Minister gets up against all manner and conditions of men, characters and situations, with which it is very difficult to deal.
I have stated before, and I may as well state again, that if angels came down from Heaven—never mind this great Government—they could not run capitalism because capitalism cannot be run. It has been tried in every part of the world. Every statesman and every country is right up against it, and cannot run capitalism; no more can the Minister of Transport run the transport business of this country successfully. Because I realise that, I am always appealing that the different sections to whom this Bill is to apply should have representation. I am now asking the hon. Gentleman to give representation to the great Cooperative Movement, which is far-flung in every town and village of England, Scotland and Wales—never mind Ireland—serving different sections of the community. They have hundreds of thousands of vehicles, operated by individuals who will be affected indirectly and directly by the Bill. I trust that the Minister will give us this concession, in view of the fact that he has given me the concession in regard to Scotland.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), who moved the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, made a very moderate and sincere appeal, and it is with regret that I find myself unable to accede to it. I still am not at all moved from the opinion I expressd in Committee that, so far as these transport problems are concerned, you cannot
distinguish the Co-operative Movement from trading interests generally, except possibly—and with this I will deal later—on the question of size. I do not want here to get into a discussion of the merits or demerits of the Co-operative Union, and I shall not let that blessed word "mutuality' pass my lips. I am concerned only with these bodies, whether they be the Co-operative Union, multiple stores or other forms of industry in this country, as users of our transport system. Taken on that basis, I cannot see any difference in principle, or any distinct point of view, as between the Cooperative Union and other similar bodies.
I frankly admit the size of the Co-operative Union, and the fact that they will be great users of the road and the rail, but I would point out to the House that before I actually appoint representatives of the trading interests I shall discuss the matter and consult with the big trading interests themselves. No doubt among those interests I shall discuss representation with the Co-operative Union.

Mr. WALLHEAD: They are the largest, are they not?

Mr. STANLEY: I should think they are. I make, of course, no promise as to what the result of those discussions may be. I hold firmly to the principle that, so far as this Transport Advisory Council is concerned, you cannot draw any distinction between the Co-operative Union and the other trading organisations who are users of the road. I would remind hon. Members that I am increasing the representation of the trading interest from four to five.

Mr. LEONARD: Would the hon. Gentleman answer a question? I know, of course, that he is careful in his use of words, but may I take it that his reference to discussing the matter with trading interests means that he definitely promises to discuss it with the Co-operative Union?

Mr. STANLEY: No. What I said was that when I come to make the appointment of representatives of the trading interests I shall, of course, consult those who I think will give me good advice in the trading world, and that I have no doubt that among those people whom I shall consult as to the appointment of those representatives will be the Cooperative Union.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Then I understand we can take it that the Minister, as regards the question of appointing representatives of trading interests, will not overlook consultation with the Co-operative Union?

Mr. STANLEY indicated assent.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the beginning, to insert the words:


"Operators of public service vehicles (licensed under the Road Traffic Act, 1930)
2"


By this Amendment I ask that operators of public service vehicles all over the country should have two representatives on the Advisory Council which is to be set up under this Measure. Passenger omnibuses now play a very large part in our daily lives, and their operations extend all over the country. Moreover, the operators of public service vehicles are subject to the very onerous restrictions and regulations of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Therefore, it is only fair to ask that they shall have adequate representation on this Advisory Council. I feel certain that the Minister will acknowledge the justice of this request, and, in urging him to grant this representation, I would also ask that the appointments of representatives of operators of public service vehicles should only be made after consultation with the responsible organisations representing those operators.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

8.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: An Amendment to this effect was moved in Committee, and was subsequently withdrawn on the Minister's promise that he would reconsider the whole question of representatives on the Advisory Council. We cannot accept this proposal, and we think it would be quite unfair that the operators of public service vehicles should be specially represented in this manner. Already there is provision for five representatives of users of mechanically propelled vehicles. That number has been criticised by some
people as being too large, and Amendments have been put down to reduce it. In the selection of these five representatives of users of mechanically propelled vehicles, it is fairly certain that the operators of public service vehicles will be included, and we think there is no justification for making any special provision for a representative of this section of mechanical vehicles.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: May I take it from the Parliamentary Secretary that a representative of operators of public service vehicles will at any rate be included in whatever number there is of representatives of users of mechanically propelled vehicles; and, if so, can I have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that such representatives will only be appointed after consultation with the responsible organisations representing these operators?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: All that I can assure my hon. Friend is that the claims of operators of public service vehicles will, of course, be considered in the representation of users of mechanically propelled vehicles.

Mr. McKEAG: Will they be included?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Their claims for inclusion will be considered.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, negatived.

8.6 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, column 2, to leave out "5," and to insert instead thereof "6."
The object of this Amendment is that the whole group of users of mechanically-propelled vehicles should have a representation of six instead of five. I am the more encouraged to move the Amendment by the words which the Parliamentary Secretary has just used in reference to the Amendment which has just been considered. When in that Amendment special representation was proposed for the operators of public service vehicles, he said that a similar proposal had been made in Committee and had been withdrawn on the Minister saying that he would reconsider the composition of this Advisory Council before the Report stage. That Amendment was with-
drawn in Committee on the statement of the Minister that on Report he would at any rate consider the possibility of giving rather more favourable representation to that general group of users of mechanically-propelled vehicles.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: What I said was that the Amendment was withdrawn in Committee when the Minister said that he would consider the whole question of the composition of the Advisory Council. I do not think he made any statement to the effect that he was going to give more representation to this or that body.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not for a moment wish to put into the mouth, either of the Parliamentary Secretary here or, retrospectively, into the mouth of the Minister upstairs, any words which he did not use. The only point that I want to bring before the House is that the effect on the minds of those to whom the Minister then spoke was obvious. He said that he would reconsider the whole question of the composition of the Advisory Council, and at any rate that was a reason why those who were responsible for the Amendment in Committee did not then press their claim for larger representation of a particular section of users of mechanically-propelled vehicles. It certainly gave to them, perhaps wrongly, the idea that the Minister at any rate would not look with an unfavourable eye on giving a rather larger representation to users of mechanically-propelled vehicles.
Apart from that, may I give what I consider to be rather strong reasons for this Amendment? The Advisory Council, as it appeared in the original Bill, numbered 22, including five representatives of users of mechanically propelled vehicles. The reason for the proportion being as large as not quite one-fourth, but rather more than one-fifth, is obvious. It is that these are the people who most of all are affected by the Bill, and, therefore, it is quite natural that they should have a rather larger representation on the Advisory Council. Under the new proposal of the Minister, the total number of the Advisory Council is swollen from 22 to 27, and, although I admit at once that you cannot claim any exact arithmetical fraction for the users of mechanically propelled vehicles, yet to
start with there would be an initial fairness in slightly increasing their representation as well. But the case is very strong for two other reasons.
The Minister is increasing the representation of the local authorities, and he gave as his reason for doing so—and it was applauded by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag), who, I hope, will support the claim which. I am low making on precisely the same grounds—that the different classes of local authorities should each have appropriate representation; and he has made provision for all these different classes of opinion being separately represented. The case of the users of mechanically propelled vehicles is similar. There are three quite distinct classes—the private owners, the operators of public service vehicles, and the road hauliers. In many cases their interests are quite distinct, and they would sometimes put forward quite different views. Consequently, it would be a convenience and would be generally fair if a number were allotted to them which was divisible by three.
Special representation has been given to local authorities in Scotland, and in some instances it would clearly be necessary to have representation of people of this class, who are most affected by the Bill, from the Northern parts of the country, if not exclusively from Scotland, and also from the South. I do not think that this would create a precedent for enlarging the council indefinitely in other respects. I do not want necessarily to bind the Parliamentary Secretary at this moment, but I hope he will ask the Minister to take into consideration what I think is a very strong case, before the Bill finally receives the Royal Assent after going to another place.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: May I direct the Minister's attention to what he said in Committee?
They cannot be representatives of particular interests or owners but must be representatives of particular types of users. Some will represent the ordinary private motorist, some the passenger type of vehicle, some goods vehicles as a whole, and so on."—OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 11th July, 1933; col. 682.
Surely, having regard to the very definite reference to owners of passenger types of vehicles, I am entitled to ask that that
statement, which was equivalent to an undertaking, should be given effect to.

8.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: What the Minister stated was that he would consider the whole matter of the composition of the Advisory Council, and he has done so. Certain additions have been made to its number. My right hon. Friend said he thought that, as the numbers had been increased, it was only right and proper that the representatives of the users of mechanically-propelled vehicles should be increased also. Now it is asked that the Minister should consider the matter once again. We think that the representation that is given to mechanically-propelled vehicles in comparison with the representation that is given to all the other interests is sufficient and I can, therefore, hold out no hope that any alteration will be made in the number as it stands in the Schedule.

8.16 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: There is one interest which in the whole of the Debate on this Schedule has never been mentioned by the Minister or anyone else, and that is the representation of railways, which now stands at two out of 27, whereas upstairs it was considered by some of us to be almost ridiculously small when it was two out of 22. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) reminds me of the importunate widow. The more he has got for his road transport, the larger the representation he thinks he ought to have. Because he has five and there are 27 now altogether, instead of 22, he asks for something which will be divisible by three. Nine would be divisible by three also, and so would 12. I am surprised at the moderation of the representatives of the road interest in asking for only six, whereas the railway companies have two. I am thankful to notice that this is not a question of voting and, therefore, it does not very much matter how many there are, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to lie awake at nights between now and the time when the Bill finally passes into an Act in giving consideration to this importunate claim from the road interest.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

8.18 p.m.

Sir G. RENTOUL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 11, to leave out the word "Coastwise."
I have another Amendment in the same line to leave out "1" and to insert instead thereof "2." The point is that there should be on this Advisory Committee two representatives of the shipping industry, without specifying whether coastwise or not. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary recognises that there are really two branches of coastwise shipping. There is the liner and there is the tramp. He is rightly anxious that all separate and distinct interests should be represented on the Advisory Council and, therefore, it is felt by the shipping industry that it would be much preferable that there should be two representatives, who would have a knowledge of the requirements of deep sea ships as well as purely coasting ships. It is not so much that there is a divergence of interest between them, but deep sea ships have much wider considerations to keep in mind, because the liner should be able to take advantage of all forms of transport. The smaller boats have to come alongside the liner, and they are a competing form of transport with the railways so far as the liners are concerned. In other words, the deep sea owners may have to take advantage of transport either by road or by rail or by canal or by coastwise shipping. The deep sea ship owners are the biggest customers of the railways with the exception of the coal mines, and it is desirable that the Advisory Council should be in a position to give the Minister advice from the special point of view of the deep sea ship owners as well as from that of coastwise shipping. Although I realise that the Council is purely advisory and has no definite voting or executive power, nevertheless I think, in regard to deep sea shipping, you have a distinct interest which should be represented.

8.22 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
The more railway representatives that there are, the more pleased will the shipping interests be, because they are so combined with the railways that to-
gether they make a very formidable competition against all forms of transport. There are two representatives from the railways and one from coastwise shipping against double the number from the other forms of transport. The liner comes into the situation very much, because even with big ships going ocean voyages there may frequently come certain periods in the voyage when they call at two home ports and then come under the term "coastwise shipping." They have to discharge large portions of their cargo, sometimes into smaller coastal liners, and frequently when they come to the end of their voyage they might still have a portion of their cargo on a through bill of lading which may possibly best be sent over the railway. There are many other considerations of that sort which point to the fact that an extra shipping adviser would considerably strengthen the Committee.

8.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should be more stupid than I am if I had gone through the Committee without realising that there are two kinds of shipping. I have ploughed through the deep waters listening to the various interests for a considerable period of time. As a matter of fact, I do not think my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment need fear that the representatives of coastwise shipping will not be able to represent the interests of shipping generally, but really the interests of the big ships are more of a trading nature than anything else. I mean that they are really limited to the use of docks and harbours and their interests are of a trading nature. Therefore, we have increased the representatives of the trading interests, and I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that. It is possible that the additional representative might represent the shipping interests which he has at heart.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 14, column 2, to leave out "3," and to insert instead thereof "5."
The purpose of the Amendment is to increase the number of Labour representatives upon the Transport Advisory Council from three to five. The request is the most modest of any put forward for representation upon the Advisory Council. One has only to look down the Schedule to see to what extent other interests are being given representation. The users of mechanically-propelled vehicles are to have five representatives; the railways, two; canals, one; and trading interests, including agriculture, five. It is proposed that the Advisory Council shall consist of 27 Members, 24 of whom are to be representative of various interests. Three seats are to be given to the representation of the various trade unions, who certainly have a point of view quite distinct from that of the other 24 representatives who will sit upon the Advisory Council.
The Minister said that he did not desire the Committee to be too large, but as far as the representation of other interests are concerned he has not by any means curtailed the number. He has increased the number of seats on the Advisory Council from 22 to 27. He has increased the representation of the other interests by four, and the representation of the interests of trade unions by one. He rightly said that the members of the council would not be called upon to vote. It was an advisory council, and he did not desire to count heads. While we agree with him from that point of view, at the same time we say that, interest for interest, the trades union representatives should be entitled to claim upon that basis. We are not making a claim upon that basis, but only asking that five seats on the Advisory Council should be allocated to the trade unions.
It might be thought that the three seats which have been given would fairly represent the trade union interests upon the Advisory Council. That is not so. There are separate sections of trade unions dealing with dock workers, with canal and river workers, with road transport (goods) and road transport (passengers), and with coastwise shipping. There are three unions representing different points of view on the railways. There is the National Union of Railwaymen which covers the grades outside the clerical and administrative departments, the
engineers represented by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and the Railway Clerks Association. The Minister is very sparing in the concession he has given in increasing the membership of trade union representatives from two to three, and we wish to express our dissatisfaction. For some reason or other the House, acting upon the advice of the Minister, is not nearly as generous as it was in setting up the London Traffic Advisory Committee or the Advisory Council under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, under which five seats were allocated to the representatives of the trade unions.
I cannot for the life of me understand the point of view put forward by the Minister that three would be a sufficient number to represent the interests of the workpeople through their trade unions. I ask at this late hour, when we are reaching the end of the Report stage of the Bill, that the Minister should reconsider the number which will be allocated to labour interests. I conclude as I commenced by saying that the request which we have made is much too modest. We could easily have asked at least for representation to the extent of one-third of the membership of the Advisory Council, but instead we are asking for representation of less than one-fifth. The House must realise that the number of seats on the Advisory Council allocated to the representatives of labour is totally inadequate, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as representing the Minister, to accede to the request which we make in the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

8.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I was trying to do a little sum of proportion while the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) was speaking, and I am not certain that I was successful. He alluded to the fact that there are five representatives of Labour on the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, but on that Committee there are 40 members, and I think that the representation works out practically in the same proportion. [An HON. MEMBER: "One-ninth!"] It is not such a large difference as hon. Members might suppose from the speech which has just
been delivered. When the Amendment was proposed in Committee by the hon. Member, the Minister said:
What really would interest me to know is how far it is possible to represent the different labour organisations concerned with transport problems under the same head, and any information my hon. Friends can give me as to who speaks for who and the difficulties of covering any two sections by one spokesman will certainly receive my most sincere consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 11th July, 1933; Col. 700.]
As a matter of fact, I do not think that until this evening any representation of that kind was made to my hon. Friend, although, I believe, recently, perhaps yesterday or to-day, he received a letter from the Railway Clerks Association pressing for the appointment of five representatives. This is all he has heard since he gave his assurance in Committee to the hon. Member. I agree that it is important that all workers interested in transport business should be represented on the Advisory Councils so that their point of view should be expressed. We believe that the representation we give to Labour will ensure that this will be the case. We have increased the representation from two to three, and, although it may be slightly less than the representation on the London Traffic Advisory Committee it is, nevertheless, a substantial representation. The Transport and General Workers' Union, I think, may be said to represent three types of employment which can be covered by one representative—passenger transport, goods transport and dock labour. There is no doubt, and I think the hon. Member will agree with me, that the Transport and General Workers' Union covers the field so far as those three types of employment are concerned.

Mr. G. HALL: I should like to point out that the constitution of the Transport and General Workers' Union is such that, as a very large union, it has various sections. There are separate sections dealing with each of the grades referred to by the Minister, and it is impossible for any one member of the Transport and General Workers' Union to cover all the grades. They have different sections dealing with goods vehicles, passenger vehicles, and the docks. There are three or four distinct and separate sections each having specialists dealing with the
various points of view in the different sections.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It may be divided into special sections. The aim in appointing the Advisory Council is to get hold of representatives in industry, employers and employed, who will be able to express the views of the interests which they represent, and we feel that three suitable members can perfectly well represent the special labour interests throughout the industries that are concerned. In these circumstances, we do not propose to increase the representation of labour on the Advisory Council. From what we know of the representatives of labour we feel that it will be perfectly possible to select men who are well qualified to express the views of those whom they represent.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I think the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was most deplorable, because it must represent the views of the Government and the views of the Minister, having regard to the statement made by the Minister of Transport in Committee, on the question of Labour representation. Those views apparently amount to this, that the National Government have so little appreciation of the part that Labour plays in the great transport industry of this country that in an Advisory Council of 27, where they are nicely balancing up the various interests concerned, they have the audacity to say that three Labour representatives can adequately represent the manifold points of view of labour engaged in the transport industry. The statement to which we have just listened and the statement of the Minister of Transport in Committee, are utterly deplorable, representing an attitude of mind which everybody who understands anything about industry must hold in the utmost contempt.
We are told that the Government have nicely balanced up all the interests concerned, and then they say that Labour will be satisfactorily and adequately represented by three people. That attitude is sheer nonsense. I do not want to use extravagant language, but I am tempted to do so by the attitude of the Minister of Transport and the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary. The obsession of the Minister of Transport
in regard to the council was that in no circumstances must it be too big. We all have reservations as to what the size of committees should be, but I am quite emphatic in my own view, and I am certain that my hon. Friends on these benches are equally emphatic, that the representation of Labour on this council is in no way adequate, and we shall have no alternative but to press our point of view in the Division Lobby.

8.40 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Parliamentary Secretary has shown such a complete misunderstanding of the position that I should like to say a few words. Apparently, he does not think it necessary for the Minister to examine the position as to what unions there are or as to the categories into which the men who are likely to be affected are divided. He complains that nobody told him. Surely the Minister of Transport has sufficient intelligence to ascertain what is the structure of the workers in the great transport industry. One would think that he would have known it without having even to make inquiries. Presumably he takes the point of view that a worker is a worker, and that is that. He does not seem to appreciate that there are different sorts of workers. I suppose if he talked about lawyers he would not appreciate that there are different sorts of lawyers, barristers and solicitors. I suppose he would confuse a doctor and a male nurse, because they both look after the patient.
If he will turn his mind to the actual position, perhaps he will say how someone from the Transport and General Workers' Union can represent the Railway Clerks' Association. How "does he expect the National Union of Railwaymen to be represented by the Transport Workers' Union? How does he expect the Seamen and Firemen's Union to be represented by the Transport Workers' Union? The categories that I have already mentioned are completely different classes of workers, just as different as the difference between a mechanical engineer, a civil engineer and an electrical engineer. If it was a question of representing the interests of engineers on this council he would not venture to say that there is no distinction between the mechanical, the electrical and the civil engineer. He would not say: "They are all engineers. We have
given one engineers' representative, and that is enough."
He seems to take the view that the workers are not sufficiently intelligent or useful to be distinguished into categories. He says: "I do not know how many different sorts there are. Nobody has told me. I cannot find out without being told, and therefore I say that three representatives are enough." That is an extraordinary attitude to take up, when any intelligent person knows that there are all these different unions, representing people of different classes, of different skill in the industry, who are doing different jobs. It is impossible for the representative of one trade union to represent the interests of other people who are doing a different class of work in a different industry altogether. By limiting the number of representatives to three, what will happen will be this, that great blocks of people who are working in the transport industry will be totally excluded from—

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM indicated dissent.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. Will he tell me how he proposes to appoint the three representatives from unions that will represent all the workers in the industry? I will sit down while he tells the House.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. and learned Member, as usual, has been very scornful of everything that we do. We say that there are many men in the Labour movement who are capable of expressing the Labour point of view, and who are not necessarily specialists. The hon. and learned Member must know that perfectly well. He chooses to get up and to accuse us of not having any interest in the workers, and he does so for no reason except this, that his idea seems to be that every trade union is to have a special representative. We do not agree with him. We think it is possible to get three representatives to speak for Labour. That is our view.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Does the hon. and gallant Member take the same view as regards the employers? Does he say that three representatives can represent them.? If so, why have a representative of the railways? Why a representative of the canals? Why a representative of the mechanically-propelled vehicles, and so
on? Why cannot three represent them all?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They are not specially representative of the employers; they represent interests.

Sir S. CRIPPS: That is precisely the point. What I am asking for is that the different interests in labour should be represented just as the different interests of the employers. The Parliamentary Secretary has given no answer at all. He says that amongst the employers they have to represent the railways, canals, docks and mechanically-propelled vehicles, they have to be put into different categories, but when it comes to labour he does not distinguish interests, and any three people can represent all the different interests in labour. I maintain that the position in labour is precisely the same. You have different trades, crafts and classes of people, who are entitled to representation on this body if you are giving representation by interests to different classes of employers. We protest against this way of treating labour by the Government.

8.46 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I really must intervene to support the Parliamentary Secretary. It really seems to me to be rather absurd on the part of hon. Members opposite. I represent to a certain extent the railways and we have two representatives. Look at the various and large interests which are concerned. Everyone must give way to a certain extent.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers). The whole of labour in this country has three representatives. The thousands of men involved in the transport services have only three representatives. If it is a question of numbers the London Traffic Advisory Committee consists of a board of about 40 members. Here we have 27, so that the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary falls to the ground when you relate it to the number of persons who are on the London Transport Advisory Committee.

Mr. PYBUS: How many Labour representatives were put by Mr. Morrison on to the London Transport Advisory Committee?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand there were five representatives out of 40.

Mr. PYBUS: In this case it is three out of 27.

Mr. WILLIAMS: And they represented five distinct and separate interests. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) has shown that there are at least five distinct and separate interests in the transport services for which there should be some representative of labour on the Advisory Council, and the Parliamentary Secretary has not in any sense replied to the substance of that argument. This merely reflects the view of the Government; they are looking after interests. Here there ought to be persons of experience who have spent years in the service of each of the special branches of the transport service to advise from their own practical experience and in relation to their own special lines on matters which concern labour interests in their particular section of the transport industry. There is no case for the enormous number of representatives given to other interests on the Advisory Council and to leave three representatives to represent labour interests.

8.50 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I will be brief in my comments on this point but I cannot help entering into the discussion in support of the Government proposal. Do hon. Members opposite suggest that the addition of two members would cover all the interests they have mentioned completely? If not, then they could equally well advance the theory that they want about 40 members on the council. Let us come down to matters of common sense. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) spoke ably but bitterly against the Parliamentary Secretary. Does he pretend that he does not represent labour in his own division, that he does not represent the various interests of labour in his particular division?

Sir S. CRIPPS: Certainly. I should not pretend to represent the interests of all the separate technical labour interests in the transport industry in my division on any subject.

Captain STRICKLAND: That is to say that the hon. and learned Member
acknowledges at once that, so far as he sits in this House, he does not represent labour in his division.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Technically yes, and technically no.

Captain STRICKLAND: He acknowledges that he is unable to voice in this House the opinion of any section of labour with which he is not particularly connected. That is the logical conclusion to which one must arrive. When the hon. and learned Member urges that the interest of every section of labour in the transport industry should be represented on this council he must at once reach the logical conclusion that every particular interest of road transport and rail transport, and other vehicle users should each have their particular voice on the council, and you immediately get a council which he would agree would be unwieldy. The smaller the committee the more quickly and efficiently is the business done. I entirely support the Government in their attitude, and I think that the three, representative of labour, will be quite capable of putting any arguments which may be given them by the different sections of labour before the council.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: If there are three separate interests in the transport industry why should there not be just the multiple of three for these special interests, as far as the employers are concerned? Why should there not be nine representatives instead of 24? If the ratio of three in the case of labour is adequate surely the ratio of nine is adequate in the other case?

Captain STRICKLAND: The hon. Member's interruption proves my point. There are far more than three interests in the case of the employers. The ramifications of our transport system, coastwise shipping, railway interests, road interests and the ordinary vehicles on the roads, represent so many different sections that we might equally claim that every one of these sections ought to be represented. If the Labour party acknowledges that their members are incapable of representing labour interests, except in so far as they are connected with their own particular union, it is a bad day for labour representation in this country.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) has not realised the situation. We are asking for a fair deal on this matter, and I do not see why the Minister of Transport, objects to our proposal. There are 27 members on this Council, and taking out those who may be said to be neutral, the pedestrians and pedal cyclists, the remainder, with the exception of the three Labour representatives,

represent the employers' side. That leaves us with only three as against the overwhelming majority of the others. It is a small matter, but if the Minister of Transport wants to get general consent for his Bill and to get on with his Bill, fie might accept our proposal and give us two more representatives.

Question put, "That '3' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 32.

Division No. 278.]
AYES.
[8.55. p.m


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gower, Sir Robert
Milne, Charles


Albery, Irving James
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Greene, William P. C.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nall, Sir Joseph


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nunn, William


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hales, Harold K.
Oman. Sir Charles William C.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Porlsre'th, C.)
Hanbury, Cecil
Pearson, William G.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Petherlck, M.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Harbord, Arthur
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bernays, Robert
Hartland, George A.
Potter, John


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Powell, Lieut.-Col, Evelyn G. H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Blindell, James
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pybus, Percy John


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hopkinson, Austin
Ramsdon, Sir Eugene


Brass, Captain Sir William
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Briant, Frank
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ray, Sir William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham


Buchan, John
Hume. Sir George Hopwood
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Burghley, Lord
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Jamieson. Douglas
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Burnett, John George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Carver, Major William H.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salt, Edward W.


Cazaiet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Clarke, Frank
Low, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Leckie, J. A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Seiley, Harry R.


Conant, R. J. E.
Levy. Thomas
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Copeland, Ida
Lewis, Oswald
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cowan, D. M.
Little, Graham., Sir Ernest
Smiles. Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smithers, Waldron


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Bernard Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Denville, Alfred
Mabane, William
Soper. Richard


Dickle, John P.
MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Drewe, Cedric
McCorguodale, M. S.
Spens, William Patrick


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Storey, Samuel


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Magnay, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Harold


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Tate, Mavis Constance


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Templeton, William P.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thompson, Luke


Ganzoni, Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gibson, Charles Granville
Martin, Thomas B.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Womensley, Walter James


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)



Wayland, Sir William A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertl'd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Weymouth, Viscount
Withers, Sir John James
Major George Davies and Dr.




Morris-Jones.



NOES.



Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Caps, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Crops, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grimths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McKeag, William
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G.


Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Macdonald.


Question put, and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE. —(Enactments Repealed.)

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 41, line 31, column 3, at the end, to insert the words:
In Section thirty-nine, the words 'shipping or,' and the words coastwise shipping or.'
This is a Government Amendment consequential upon the insertion of a new Clause relating to coastwise shipping.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 41, line 49, column 3, leave out the word "The," and insert instead thereof the words, "Sub-section (5) of Section forty-six and the ".—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

9.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
We have now reached the last stage of this Bill in this House and some of us who have been following its career from the beginning are not altogether sorry that it is going to another place for a time. When my hon. Friend the Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill lie showed—I think naturally—great pride in his offspring. At the same time he was not one of those foolish parents who are apt to consider that any goose of theirs must be a swan and who grow indignant when any criticism is raised against it. He therefore did what I think was right and proper. He invited the criticism of all sections of the House and he asked all hon. Members to assist him in making the Bill a better Bill.
I should like to say at once that both in Committee and during the Report stage we have received the greatest assistance from our critics who I am sure have been actuated by one desire only and that to make the Bill a more useful and workable Measure. Naturally, we have not been able to accept all the suggestions which have been offered to us. It seemed to us in connection with some of those suggestions that those who made them were influenced in favour of some form of transport or some particular interest and that partiality, in our opinion, caused them to lose sight of the main principles of the Bill, which are the regulation of goods traffic on the roads and the co-ordination of all forms of transport in the interest of the community as a whole. Nevertheless, I should like to assure the House that in our opinion the amended Bill is an improvement upon the Bill as it was originally introduced, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to admit that his infant has been developed on the right lines during its testing time in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
I should like now to draw attention to the snore important changes which have been made in the Bill since the Second Reading. There was a general opinion in the Committee that the scope of the operations to he conducted by traders under "C" licences should be enlarged, and consequently we have added new paragraphs to Clause 1, Sub-section (3) which will enable manufacturers or dealers to carry their goods in vehicles in respect of which a licence has been taken out under Section 9 of the Roads Act of 1920, or by a repairer under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1922, in
accordance with the regulations applicable to that licence. A paragraph has also been added to the same Sub-section (3) to meet the needs of manufacturers. This Amendment will enable a manufacturer, his agent or dealer, to carry goods in a vehicle under a "C" licence while it is being used by him for demonstration purposes. We understand that that will be of advantage to the trade and generally will have a beneficial effect. There are other Amendments of substance to Clause 1 in Sub-section (5) which contains the list of exemptions from the licensing provisions of the Bill. We have inserted new paragraphs which will have the effect of exempting vehicles for towing a disabled motor car; vehicles used for miners' rescue purposes under Section 85 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911; vehicles used by local authorities for certain sanitary purposes; and also vehicles belonging to persons acting in pursuance of contracts with local authorities and vehicles used for the purpose of the enactments relating to weights and measures or the sale of food and drugs.
In Clause 2, Sub-section (2) we have made an Amendment making it clear that canal, dock and harbour undertakings can operate vehicles under "A" licences. As a general rule, I understand harbour and dock undertakings do not themselves carry goods. The Sub-section as amended will authorise an "A" licence to be used in connection with such storage or warehousing of goods as may be incidental to the holders' business as a carrier. In Committee a certain amount of anxiety was expressed as to the procedure to be adopted in the application for licences. It was considered that the requirements under Clause 6, Sub-section (1) were somewhat too searching and inquisitive. We were impressed by the arguments brought forward in this connection and we have therefore inserted Amendments to make it clear that an applicant for a licence shall not be called upon to disclose either publicly, or to the licensing authority, whether vehicles specified on his licence are out-and-out in his own possession or whether he holds them under a hire purchase agreement. We have also inserted Amendments to limit the extent to which a licensing authority can ask for financial information about the business of a "C" licence holder. That was a
point which was specially pressed and I think rightly pressed in Committee.
We have considerably revised Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 which deals with the discretion of a licensing authority as to granting or refusing a licence. The object of this Sub-section has, I think, as a result of these Amendments, been made clearer. It provides that the licensing authority when granting a licence is to have regard to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring as well as of persons providing facilities for transport. We also inserted an Amendment, at the instance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) during the Report stage to the effect that the licensing authority should, if SO requested, give reasons for refusing to grant a licence. My hon. Friend while accepting that Amendment assured the House that he did not think it would make much difference to those concerned. At the same time he realised that there was a feeling in the House as there was in Committee that people who were not getting their licences should be allowed to know the reason and, consequently, we have made the Amendment which I have just indicated and which I think is generally acceptable. In Clause 8 which deals with the conditions of licences an Amendment has been inserted in Sub-section (3) providing that the licensing authority may attach a further condition to a "B" licence, namely a condition that goods shall be carried for hire or reward only for specified persons. That provision we think will be of assistance to those applying for "B" licences because if the applicant is limited in this way to what presumably is his usual carrying business it is less likely that his application will be opposed by competitors. Therefore, we think that that Amendment is of advantage to those in search of "B" licences. The next important change that has been made in the Bill since its Second Reading is an Amendment in Subsection (3) of Clause 10 which deals with objections to certain applications for licences or for variations of licences. The Clause now provides for the advertisement of applications for short-term licences. I think the change in this provision should prevent any possible abuse of such licences.
In Committee upstairs it seemed to be the general opinion that it would be fairer
to all concerned if the licensing authority should, if so requested by the licence-holder, state in writing the grounds for the revocation or a suspension of a licence. A provision to this effect has been inserted in Sub-section (2) of Clause 11. My hon. Friend has inserted another provision to meet the views of the Committee stating that there shall be, if required, a public inquiry before the revocation or suspension of a licence. Much stress was laid upon this matter upstairs, and a great deal of Debate took place upon it. It was clearly shown that the general opinion was that the revocation or suspension of a licence should not take place without a public inquiry. Our intention in the matter from the beginning was in accordance with the recommendations of the Salter Report. When we first introduced the Bill it was our intention that the procedure with regard to the granting and revocation or suspension of licences should be made as easy and as cheap as possible for all those concerned. At the same time, we have always realised that a fair chance must be given to everyone, and so, when we found that there was a consensus of opinion among Members upstairs that the provisions in the Bill were not adequate for the protection of licence-holders, we were only too glad to make provision for the better safeguarding of their interests. For the same reason we agreed to insert an Amendment—Subsection (13) of Clause 13—enabling the Appeal Tribunal to remit fees in cases where the applicant may lack the means to pay them.
In the Bill as it was introduced it was proposed to give powers to the examiners to stop vehicles on the roads. Apprehension was expressed by a good many Members of the Committee upstairs that those powers might work for ill and that evilly disposed persons might use the opportunity of posing as examiners in order to stop vehicles for their nefarious purposes, and it was argued that drivers of vehicles on the roads might legitimately be excused from paying no attention to signs to stop made to them by persons on the road. My hon. Friend was impressed by this point of view and decided that examiners should not he allowed to stop vehicles in motion. They will have power to detain them, if they so wish, when they are already at rest. Certain
Members of the Committee expressed the opinion that this might greatly reduce the efficiency of the work of the examiners, but on the whole we think the change is likely to be in the best interests both of the people who work on the roads and of those who are charged with seeing that vehicles are worked under proper conditions.
Clause 24 of the Bill gives the Minister of Transport power to prohibit or restrict the use of vehicles on certain roads. It is a wide power, and when this was pointed out upstairs, the Minister agreed to insert an Amendment that no order made by him under the Clause should become operative until it had been laid before Parliament and received an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. I think that this provision will be welcomed by all those who consider that we are on "the slippery slope," as the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag) said early to-night, of bureaucracy, and that our liberties are endangered by the unfettered exercise of authority by Government Departments. Clause 25 was inserted in Committee, and it has been considerably discussed tonight. I do not propose to say anything more about it now. I have no doubt that the Debate to-night has rather cleared the issue and that the words of my hon. Friend on the subject will be studied by hon. Members opposite.
The main Clause perhaps of this Bill is Clause 30, formerly Clause 29, which provides for an important relaxation of the existing provisions governing the charges which may be made by railway companies. In the light of events since the passage of the Railway Act, 1921, and in particular the growth of road transport, in active competition with the railways, but free from the statutory limitations applying to railway rates, it has been apparent, and is generally accepted, that some greater scope should be allowed to the railways to enable them to adjust their charges to existing conditions. The changes that we have made in this Clause since it was introduced are as follows, if I may summarise them:
In the first place, the interests of a trader who considers that his business will be detrimentally affected if an agreed charge is approved, or that his business has been detrimentally affected as a result of the making of an agreed
charge, will be safeguarded by the new Sub-section (5), which will give him the right at any time to apply to the tribunal for a charge to be fixed for the carriage of his merchandise. Thus the protection afforded by the right of a trader or a representative body of traders to object to the giving of approval to an agreed charge, for which the Bill as introduced provided, has been materially reinforced. An effective substitute for the existing provisions as to equality of charges and undue preference has been embodied in the Clause. In addition, a number of minor alterations have been made in order to meet points raised on behalf of the traders during the consideration of the Clause.
Secondly, in order to ensure that the interests of dock and harbour authorities are adequately safeguarded, Sub-section (9) has been inserted. Any such authority which has reason to believe that a railway company is, by an agreed charge, placing its port, harbour, or dock undertaking at an undue disadvantage as compared with any other port, harbour, or dock, will have the right to make complaint to the Railway and Canal Commissioners.
Thirdly, fears have been expressed that, armed with their new powers, the railway companies might adopt a policy which would prejudicially affect coastwise shipping to a serious extent, and in Committee upstairs it was strongly urged that in the national interest some protection must be afforded to coastwise shipping. We have, as the House knows, introduced a Clause which we believe will be an effective guarantee against any such injury being inflicted through a policy of diversion of traffic from coastwise shipping to the railways, and will assist in bringing about a measure of co-operation and co-ordination between the railways and the shipping interests.
I should like to take this opportunity to-night of recognising the fair and reasonable spirit in which the railway companies have co-operated with the Government in seeking to meet the views of traders and the claims of the transport undertakings. This general attitude of reasonableness which has animated all concerned—I do not limit that reasonableness to the railway companies—augurs well, I think, for that co-operation in transport work which is one of the main objects of the Bill. I
do not propose to say anything further about the Amendments that have been made in the Schedules to the Bill. We have only just ceased discussing these, and there is a divergence of opinion still among hon. Members as to the right of representation given to the various interests concerned.
Our main idea in creating this Transport Advisory Council is that it should have represented on it all the interests which are connected with transport. It is not, in my opinion, a question so much of Labour being represented in the special way that certain hon. Members were urging just now. Labour and capital in an industry should present a common interest, and, when you say that railways are represented on this Council, you mean the whole railway interests, whether employers or employés. I should like it to be borne in more and more upon the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is the idea we have in connection with this body which we are creating to assist the Minister of Transport in the great transport problems of this country. One of the most important parts of the Bill is the institution of this Transport Advisory Council. Through its aid, if we are successful in our object, we shall get advice which will be based on the transport work of the whole country in its various implications and, on its advice, we shall be able to co-ordinate it and bring it together in the public interest. In recommending this Bill to the House for Third Reading, I am recommending a Bill which is in the nature of an experiment. It is an experiment which has been delayed 10 years too long. It will now shortly be put into operation and, I believe, its results will be that the conditions of public safety upon our roads will be materially improved, that the conditions of the workers in the industry will benefit considerably, and that the general co-ordination of the transport services of this country will be brought about in the interests of the public as a whole.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to pass a Bill for regulating road and rail traffic which shows insufficient regard for the public safety in its failure adequately to protect
working conditions and fails to recognise the urgent necessity for a national coordinated system of transport.
May I, at the onset of my remarks, compliment the Minister on his conduct of the proceedings on this Bill both in Committee upstairs, where we had 18 sittings, and on the Report stage here. For some 10 years I have had experience of the Committee work of this House, but I have never sat upon a more congenial Committee. That was brought about very largely as a result of the manner in which the Minister conducted those proceedings. It was not that we were in any way satisfied with the concessions he gave us—for he certainly gave us very little either upstairs or here—but he had such a pleasant way of saying no that it was almost impossible to resist withdrawing Amendments when he got up to put his point of view. Notwithstanding that, we are still hoping that, as a result of the conversations which he is going to have with the persons named in the course of the proceedings to-day, some concessions will be given which will make the lot of the men employed in the industry better than it would be if the Bill went through in the form in which it was introduced. We also attribute very largely the manner in which the Bill was dealt with in Committee to the very pleasant way in which the Chairman of the Committee performed his duties. I have never seen a Chairman who did his work in a more pleasant and tactful way than did my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins). It contributed very largely to the success of our proceedings.
The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the changes which have taken place in the various Clauses of the Bill. The principal change is with regard to the old Clause 29, which is now Clause 30. It was very interesting to see the very easy way in which the Minister was able to steer his keel through rocks. I thought it was almost impossible for him to satisfy the road and railway interests and I expected that the fight, which was rather a prolonged fight in Committee, would have been continued much more strenuously during the Report stage on the Floor of the House of Commons. I was agreeably surprised to hear the various interests, road and rail and coastwise, agreeing to a compromise which the Minister brought in himself without
very much consultation with the various interests concerned, but which had the happy effect of at least withdrawing a good deal of the opposition levelled against the Clause.
While I say that to the changes which have taken place in the Clauses, I would have liked to have seen this offspring of the Minister made much more worthy of his efforts. It is, after all, only a patch on an overpatched coat. We are simply dealing with traffic, road, rail and coastwise, in a piecemeal fashion. During the last few years we have had six or seven Acts of Parliament dealing with traffic, but, notwithstanding all those Acts, there is now, after all this legislation, no co-ordination between one section and the other. That is what we are very concerned about, and this Bill may be regarded as a further testimony to the need for national regulation and co-ordination of the transport services of the country. For years those of us who sit on these benches have been urging the importance of this question to the industrial, commercial, and social life of the country. There is no doubt about the wisdom of our contention, because it is beyond question. There was abundant proof during the war years, when the railways and canals were under Government control and when road traffic had not developed as it has now, that there was a need for this national co-ordination. That was so evident that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), then a leading member of the Coalition Government, was impelled to declare for the complete nationalisation of the transport services. Then in 1920, as now in 1938, the vested interests were too powerful. Then as now the Government dared not tackle those vested interests and lift from the shoulders of the community the handicaps and hindrances which the present chaotic, competitive, and overlapping arrangements cause. Our policy has long been that transport should be organised on a truly national basis and that the railways, the road motor services, the coastal services, and, indeed, the developing air services, should all be regarded as part of a national system of transport, each playing its national part and working in co-operation instead of in competition.
We do not desire to withhold from the Minister of Transport the measure of
credit due to him for the steps he is taking under the provisions of this Bill. He is seeking to bring about some measure of co-ordination and long overdue control of traffic on the road. This is now being carried on under conditions that are notoriously little short of a public scandal imperilling daily the lives and limbs of the road-using public. As the Parliamentary Secretary rightly pointed out, the Bill relieves the railways of some of the handicaps and unfairnesses under which they have laboured and which have helped largely to bring about conditions by which the interests of the railway proprietors and shareholders have been seriously affected, and, what we are more concerned about, it has also affected the employment of many thousands of the workers and their conditions have been placed in jeopardy. The plea for transport co-ordination is not a plea for any limited sectional interest. The First Schedule of the Bill shows how comprehensive are the interests involved. There are trading interests which include agriculture, harbour and dock authorities, railways, canals, the users and manufacturers of mechanically-propelled vehicles, local authorities, and, in fact, every section of the community.
A truly national Government living up to its name would recognise the imperative need of provisions for regulating all kinds of transport in the interests of the public service. Their purpose should be to provide means for meeting the needs not only of those who travel, but of trade and industry and their further requirements in the development of the country, more especially in regard to agriculture, new industries and the better housing of the people. One could deal at length with the remarkable change in the conditions of rural life which have been. brought about by the road motor omnibus services and could consider also the possibilities if these motor services for the carriage of passengers and goods were sensibly used in co-operation instead of in wasteful competition with railways and other forms of transport. In an allusion to the early days of railway development the Royal Commission on Transport said that many of the promotions were initiated and carried out in an atmosphere of ignorance and prejudice which had left a lasting mark on the economies of our railways. Every student knows that to be true. A similar situation has arisen
in regard to the newer forms of transport, and we say that unless prompt action is taken with regard to the coordination of those services in the national interest, the same thing will happen with regard to other forms of transport.
This Bill does tend to some measure of supervision for vehicles upon the road and the nature of the traffic which may he carried. Is there any doubt that this supervision is very necessary? We support that part of the Bill unhesitatingly, and we have done so throughout the proceedings on the Bill. The roads of this country were never constructed to carry the traffic or the very heavy vehicles which we now see. Indeed, we say without any hesitation that a lot of the heavier traffic could be and should be carried by the railways. Under a co-ordinated system of transport there would be a natural allocation of traffic to road or rail or canal or, where time was important, the air services. There has been a disposition in some quarters to treat rather cavalierly the suggestion with regard to internal air transport. I think that the attitude of some of the railway companies in this direction is on the right lines. is there any hon. Member who, when using the roads, has not shuddered at the possibility of the danger of encountering some of these huge, cumbersome six- or eight-wheeled vehicles With their trailers we might say that they are small goods trains tearing up the roads, which, incidentally, the general taxpayer has to help to provide, and which, by their enormous height and width, block the view and endanger the passage of the normal vehicles. There is the possibility that the Minister will deal with that aspect of the problem through this Bill.
We are more concerned about the conditions of labour which should be contained in this Measure. While we are certainly rather pleased that the drivers of the vehicles which will come under "A" and "B" licences will have some guarantee as far as wages are concerned, I want to repeat the hope that the drivers of the vehicles which will have the "C" licences will be treated in a similar way. Unless the Minister concedes the point which we put to him, 75 per cent. of the usefulness of this Bill from the point of view of wages alone will be destroyed. Eighty per cent. of the road vehicles
which are now upon the roads will come under the "C" licence, and for that reason we say and emphasise as strongly as possible that the "C" licence drivers should be treated as the drivers of "A" and "B" licences are treated.
Then there is the question of hours of labour. It cannot be said that we are by any means satisfied with the 11-hour day which is contained in the Road Traffic Act of 1930. I wonder what hon. Members would say if a Bill was presented to institute an 11-hour day in other industries where the public are not so susceptible to the slip of any one person as they are in the transport industry. I know that the charge which will be levelled against us is that the 11-hour day is contained in the Road Traffic Act of 1930. That is true, but before that Act was passed the hours of the drivers of passenger and goods vehicles were not limited even to the 11-hour day. They could work round the clock, although they had the safety of their passengers and of the public in their hands, without any statutory regulation of hours.
We hoped that the Minister would have improved upon that in this Bill. One would have imagined that in 1933, when we talk so much about eight hours' work, eight hours' sleep, eight hours' play and "eight bob a day," that demand would have been a reality. Indeed, we are talking about a six-hour day, and in America they did produce legislation for a five-hour day; but under this Bill provision is made for an eleven-hour day. What we are concerned about, and I know that the Minister is also concerned about it, is the difficulty of getting the owners of passenger and goods vehicles to recognise that an eleven-hour day is too long for their drivers. I wonder what the House would think if the railway companies insisted on an eleven-hour day for the drivers of passenger and goods trains. I know the Minister may say "Well, we have followed the example of your Bill," and I admit that conditions are better than those which existed before 1930, but we would have liked the Minister to reduce the hours of labour still further.
He has amended the Road Traffic Act in one respect which, in his opinion, is going to be an improvement, and we
wish it could have also been improved in this direction. We have received assurances from the Minister that the provisions of this Bill will enable him more rigidly to apply the law as to hours, and we on this side of the House will do all we can to assist him, because I think the cases mentioned in which men only had the opportunity of sleeping in their beds on Saturday and Sunday nights and on other nights had to sleep on their vehicles constitute a scandal. It is an improvement that he should have agreed to consider, in consultation with the Attorney-General, whether some provision can be inserted in the Bill whereby drivers will be enabled to take their rest away from the influence of their employers. That will be an improvement, but even that will not satisfy us. Under a co-ordinated system of transport an eleven-hour day would not be tolerated for a single moment, and we will press on every possible occasion for a reduction of the hours of labour. To repeat what was said in the discussion on the Schedules, we are by no means impressed by the addition made to the number of Labour representatives upon the Advisory Council. We still think we have been unfairly treated. The minimum representation given to the trade unions should have been at least five members.
I am not going to deal with Clause 30. When it was before the Committee we allowed the road and rail interests, both of which were well represented there, to fight the matter out. We said, "As long as there is the system of competition you will always have difficulties between the different forms of service." Unless we can have a co-ordinated system such as we ask for in this Amendment no one will be able equitably to allot the traffic between the road, rail and coastwise shipping facilities. Even if the Minister himself had it in his power to make the allocation he would not be able to satisfy the various interests, which will always fight for the purpose of maintaining the profits of their own concerns. But whilst we allowed the fight to he conducted by the interests representing road and rail and coastwise shipping, and whilst we want to see the railways get a fair deal and want to see the railways taking over quite a lot of the heavy traffic which is a menace to the roads and to the public, at the same time we hope there is nothing
in this Bill which is going to stop the legitimate development of road transport.
We cannot allow our roads to become what the canals are at the present time. We have a development of road traffic as a result of scientific knowledge, which has given greater facilities to a large number of people, and we hope that this Bill will not in any way retard the further development which we think ought legitimately to take place. If there were co-ordinated system there would be a proper allocation of traffic. The roads would do their job, the railways their job and coastwise shipping its job, but without co-ordination we shall not be able to bring about that happy state of affairs. The Minister has a responsibility not only to the various road, rail and coastwise shipping interests but a responsibility to the nation at large. As the Parliamentary Secretary rightly said, this Bill is an experiment. Unfortunately, all the legislation dealing with transport during the last 10 years has been in the nature of an experiment. We think the time has come when these experiments should be examined, when in the interests of the nation as a whole, in the interests of public safety and in the interests of proper development there should be a co-ordinated system of transport. For that reason we move the Amendment which I have submitted.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I would like to make a few observations on the Third Reading of this Bill, in which I have taken a keen interest ever since it was introduced. The speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) does not meet with my Whole-hearted approval, because he introduced as his contribution to the solution of this problem a principle with which I do not agree; but there is one point on which I can agree with him entirely and whole-heartedly, and without wishing to add to the embarrassment of the Minister I join in saying how very much everybody on the Committee appreciated the very skilful way in which he has piloted the Bill through. The hon. Member for Aberdare has already said that the Minister did not give much away. I am not going to be ungracious. He did give me a few things, and for what he gave me I am thankful; but such small things as he gave us he gave with the air of handing over whole
Clauses. One of the main factors in the successful passage of the Bill through Committee was the way in which he gave us nothing and made it appear that he was giving us something.
Up to now the Bill, although an important and highly complicated Measure, has had a life of extraordinary serenity. Through every stage its passage has been serene. It has passed through the House of Commons with a serenity which is almost majestic, and now it has arrived at its Third Reading. When it was first introduced, I said that I thought the House would raise no great objection to the general idea which was supposed to be actuating the Government in introducing it, which was that road traffic should be regulated, and that in nearly every portion of the House there would be agreement that transport facilities and services should be co-ordinated. With those objects in view some of my hon. Friends and myself have been looking at this Bill from the start. I am wondering, now that we have got to this stage, and when all the alterations that can be made in this House have been made, how far we have gone towards attacking the problem. The first thing that we have done towards the regulation of transport on the roads is to set up a most elaborate system of licensing. Many arguments have been put forward in favour of licensing, but the most important, and the really overwhelming argument that defends a system which I do not like, is that you could not otherwise secure safety conditions on the road, and that you could not, under existing legislation, ensure proper hours of work and proper rates of wages in the transport industry.
We have gone a very great deal further than we needed, in the system of licensing, in order to achieve that end. We have divided the licences into three classes. There will be quite a lot of argument and complication, before this Bill has been in operation very long, as to who is which, and what kind of licence is to be available here or there. It is quite easy for us to lay down provisions in this Bill, but when we come to apply them there will be much complication for a long time. We shall have to watch with the very greatest care the administration of the provisions, so far as licensing is concerned. I should not worry very much if the present Minister were to be Min-
ister of Transport in perpetuity, because he has expressed himself very definitely and consistently on the question of records. The Minister of Transport, however, will not always be the same man, and there is room, under the provisions of Clause 14, which lays down the records which are to be kept, for oppression to take place and very heavy burdens to he placed on the people engaged in the industry, and more especially upon people who are not in the transport industry for a living. That applies particularly to the "C" licensee, to whom road transport is simply an auxiliary to help him to carry on his other business. Unless the provisions of Clause 14 are to be applied in a very common-sense and sympathetic manner, I can conceive of the "C" licence-holders finding themselves in very great administrative difficulty when attempting to comply with some of the provisions of the Clause.
I have voiced the opinion before, and I say again now, that a little more discretion should have been allowed to the Minister as to the amount of information which he requires, and perhaps there should have been a little stronger provision for the advice given by the Transport Advisory Council to be made effective in regard to the drawing up of the requirements of this Clause. The practice of tribunals is one which is growing up, and it has grown up under the Road Traffic Act. I hope most sincerely that some of the very serious complaints which we have heard from time to time, in regard to the tribunals under the Road Traffic Act, will not be repeated under this Bill. No doubt there have been very serious complaints in the early days, and it is quite possible, if this Bill were not to be applied by the traffic commissioners in a sympathetic way, that great difficulty might arise in the conduct of business on the road through their action. The House of Commons will have to keep a very careful watch on this, and an eye on the effect of the late Clause 29, which is not dead but has reappeared in its new garb as Clause 30, and which deals with. the rights of railway companies, with the approval of the Railway Rates Tribunal, to make agreed charges for the carriage of merchandise.
I have always been most sympathetic to the claim of the railway companies that
they should be freed from some of the restrictions which have hampered them in carrying on their business, but in releasing the railway companies, as we have done in Clause 30, from many of the statutory obligations with which they have had to comply in the past, we have taken an unusual step, and no one can say what the effects of that step may be, unless the House watches very carefully. One effect to which it may lead, unless it is properly applied, is not towards co-ordinating the traffic of this country, but towards a war consisting of an attempt on the part of the railways to murder road traffic, and an attempt on the part of road traffic to bring down the railways still further by retaliation. I hope that nothing of that kind will happen, and I am sure that common sense will prevent it. I hope that the House of Commons, having taken this unusual step, will watch the effects of it very carefully, and will see that it really carries out its function of helping the railways without doing damage.
Perhaps the most remarkable feature about the passage of this Bill is the extraordinary apprehension which was manifested by the canal people, the docks and harbour authorities, the shipping people—-coastwise and deep sea—and by the trades of this country, when Clause 29, which is now Clause 30, was first introduced. I do not want to ascribe, or to attempt to ascribe, any reasons for that apprehension, but it was a very eloquent if not a very flattering commentary on the use that the railway companies have made of their opportunities in the past. The apprehension was very great, and there is no doubt, as has been said by the hon. Member for Aberdare, that the Minister has shown the greatest skill in getting the Clause through in its present form.
I want to remind the House of one other point. We have divided arbitrarily, although reasonably, all road traffic into three distinct categories. We have called the haulage contractor an "A" licensee; the man who uses his transport solely for his own business a "C" licensee; and the man who does part-time haulage work a "B" licensee. If. in order to regulate road transport and prevent congestion on the roads, you remove vehicles from the road, you must do it at the expense of the man whose sole livelihood is road transport, that is, at the expense
of the "A" licence man. Suppose that you say to the "B" licence man: "You cannot have a 'B' licence, and we will not allow you to come into the business any more," and you do not take his fleet of vehicles off the road. He carries on with his vehicles for his own business as a "C" licence holder. If you remove a haulage contractor's five vehicles from the road for various reasons—traffic facilities being sufficient, or for some other reason—your action in reducing that fleet, or in driving that man out of business, is completely nullified, so far as congestion on the road is concerned, by the fact that the "C" licensee may walk in, on the very same day, and get a licence for 15 or 20 more vehicles, as he likes, without any possibility of objection. That seems to me to be an anomaly. I was rather surprised that the Minister, when introducing a category of this character, and proceeding on these lines with the object of regulating road traffic, did not take the very much simpler course of regulating the size and weight of vehicles on the road. If he had done that, half his troubles would have been solved by a stroke of the pen. That was an omission which I think he will one day have to remedy.
The last question to which I desire to refer is the question of co-ordination. How is the Bill going to deal with that question? The greatest weakness is the one which has been expressed with great force from the benches opposite. The cost of running a five-ton vehicle is the same per mile wherever it is run. The only possible difference that can be made in the cost of running a five-ton vehicle is in the wages of the driver. If there is going to be, as there is going to be, regulation of the wages of the driver who is working for a haulage contractor or for a part-time haulage contractor, and this door is going to be left open to the "C" licence-holder to have as many vehicles as he likes, and if at the same time the question of the rates of wages which are to be paid to the drivers of vehicles owned by "C" licence-holders is not dealt with, there will not be created in the transport trade conditions which will enable the merchant to say, "It does not matter to me whether I send my goods by road or by rail. I do not want to keep my own fleet any longer, because it costs me the
same to run my five-ton vehicle as it costs the haulage contractor. I much prefer to get rid of the trouble of running my own transport, and give it to the man whose business it is to run it." That cannot be done as long as there is a different rate of wages, because it does not give a proper comparison of costs, and, until you do that, you are not taking any proper step towards the regulation of transport on the roads.
Similarly, in the case of the railways, unless the merchant can be got into the position—in which he is not put by this Bill—of being equally able to say, I will send my goods by a road haulage contractor," or "I will send them by rail because they are more suited to rail transport," I do not think that any great step is being taken towards the co-ordination of transport. This is really the main point on which I differ from the hon. Member for Aberdare. He wants to nationalise the system of transport, as it were, artificially. I do not want to do that at all; I want to see the Government creating conditions in which transport will co-ordinate itself because of its own common sense, and in which the trade that goes by road and by rail will automatically and naturally find its right place. To that extent I am rather disappointed that the Bill does not take into consideration one or two points. I apologise for detaining the House for so long, but I want to say, before we part from the Bill, that I really do not feel now that we are saying farewell to it, and I do not think we are saying farewell to the road and rail traffic problem of this country by any manner of means, although this Bill may perhaps—and this is as good a thing as I can say of it—prove to be a foundation upon which future legislation which will lead to proper co-ordination may be based.

10.10 p.m.

Sir J. WITHERS: For a long time past I have taken a great interest in the railways. That has not been because I have had any financial interest in them, because, luckily, I have never owned 6d. in any British railway; but I have taken an interest in them from the point of view of the public. To my mind the position of the railways during the last 10 years has been very desperate. In that period the actual receipts of the railways have fallen by no less than 25 per cent., and,
looking at that fact from various points of view, we see how important it is. From the national point of view it is extremely important that the railways should be kept in a proper state of efficiency, but it has been difficult to do that in face of the great loss of revenue. As regards the employés, it has been pointed out by an hon. Member opposite that they have been in jeopardy of losing, and did in fact lose, some of their employment. The stockholders, too, have suffered great losses, affecting no fewer than 800,000 people. I was astonished to hear, in the Debate on the Second Reading, a view expressed by a Member on one of the back benches opposite, to the effect that he did not see why the Government should interfere to help the railways in any way whatsoever, any more than they should interfere with any other great British company. He forgot, of course, the statutory rules and regulations giving them powers and also restraining their energies and putting obligations upon them; and he forgot another thing which ought to be remembered, namely, that this House put the railway stocks into the list of trustee investments, that is to say, it enabled trustees, without incurring any liability, to invest trust funds in various railway securities. A lot of money was so invested by trustees under these statutory powers, and has been lost, and not only a very great many poor people, but benevolent institutions and, I think, trade unions and other social institutions of that kind, have been gravely affected.
I do not suggest for a moment that the Government are responsible for seeing that all trustee stocks should be maintained at their proper level, but I think that, having made these statutory enactments regarding the investment of trust funds in railway securities, they have a certain amount of responsibility to view the matter seriously, and to deal particularly with the interests of the railways. That, undoubtedly, they have done up to a certain point. The benefit given to the railways under this Bill has been very gratefully received by the railways, but I think that, if it is examined, it will be found to be extremely small in effect. Really it comes to this, that for the first time the railways are enabled to make bargains with their customers, subject, of course, to very stringent regulations
which have been put in the Bill. One welcomes very much the provision for some regulation of road traffic, and one might also suggest its possible extension to coastwise traffic.
It is a very extraordinary position that, while there are three competing methods of carrying traffic—railway transport, road transport and coastwise transport—two of them, namely, road transport and coastwise transport, are absolutely free to quote any terms they like and to make any bargain that they like with any one of their customers. The railways now for the very first time are at last able to make agreed charges, subject to the most elaborate provisions, appeals to all sorts of tribunals appointed by the Minister, and so on. What would happen supposing that sort of restriction was put on lines of hauliers running from Edinburgh to London and that they had to submit their terms to a tribunal? There would be a nice outcry. Still, one must not be critical. The railways have this, and they are very pleased to have it, but it is, of course, an anomaly. The Bill is imperfect and does not carry out co-ordination altogether, but it is a beginning, and I think all who are interested in the problem look upon it as a beginning. The ultimate object of all legislation of this kind ought to be to carry out that very useful and thoughtful suggestion in the Salter Report, the co-ordination of all systems of traffic. I welcome the Bill as a first step towards that, and I hope that greater development will take place in the co-ordination of all systems.

10.16 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I should like to say a few words in support of the Bill on behalf of coastwise shipping. We felt some anxiety when it was first introduced, because, surely, of all the methods of transport the most ancient and the most economical is that of the sea, and for heavy loads, where time is no object, or is a less object, it still remains the most economical form of transport. Hon. Members lay great stress on the fact that, of the three methods of transport, the road can charge any rates that it likes. That is true. The railway is restricted, which is also true. They say coastwise traffic is also perfectly free. But, unfortunately, there are restrictions on coastwise traffic not through man-made law but through far greater economic
laws by which, if each voyage is not paying, the ship ceases to operate and the owner of a small venture has to stop work altogether. The capital invested in coastwise shipping amounts only to £20,000,000 while the railways, who are its serious competitors, have an enormous amalgamation of many hundreds of millions of pounds. With their great lines and their trains running to scheduled time, anything that they can take is acceptable. All is grist that comes to their mill. If they can get agreed rates and flat rates, which under ordinary economic laws are not sound, so much the better for the railways. But the sea cannot operate like that. If ships cannot make a definite profit on practically everything they handle, they go out of action altogether. But that position, I am glad to say, has been largely rectified.
Another of the weak points of coastal traffic arises at the terminals. Both at the commencement and the termination of their voyage in nearly every case they are in the hands of the railway authorities. I do not think anyone has suggested that they have been unfairly or harshly treated. But, when we are passing legislation like this for the future, the House would wish to cover any possible point that might be a source of difficulty. Coastwise shipping likes to quote through rates. Then every trader knows where he is. Taking an ordinary rate of about 10s., do hon. Members fully realise that the actual money earned over the water is about 25 per cent. of that? The actual amount earned on a 10s. rate by coastal shipping, as far as shipping is concerned, is about half-a-crown. The remaining 7s. 6d. is taken by the railway companies through the rail haul at the beginning or end of the voyage and by dock and harbour dues. Any trader in the country sending a small bale of goods who thinks an agreed rate is militating against his business has a right to go to the tribunal and put his case. The Minister, I am glad to say, has appreciated the point. I am very pleased to see that coastwise ships have got practically all that they have asked for. If there is a case when they feel that there is a discriminatory rate against them, they can, through what I personally consider an unnecessarily circuitous route, make an appeal. I hope the occasion will never arise, but I am sure the House will
realise that it gives the coastal trade a great feeling of confidence that they can protect themselves and can go to the tribunal if necessary.
I should like to refer to the question of certain docks and harbours. I have read the end of Clause 30 very carefully, and I am not certain that it quite embodies the right of appeal to all docks and harbours. There are some harbours which by their constitution have to use all their surplus profits either in reducing dues or improving the amenities of the harbour. All such harbours exist entirely upon shipping dues, generally speaking, from coastal ships coming into the harbour. If those coastal ships did not come in, the harbours would be allowed to silt up and disappear. When the road and rail interests talk about the national point of their various enterprises, I do not think that there is any Member of the House who would not say that the sea and coastal harbours were not even more important than any national character which might be given to road and rail. Such harbours as those to which I am referring have had that fear. If I am in order, I would like to say that I did not pursue various Amendments to which my name was subscribed because I felt that under Clause 30, if the large volume of heavy traffic coming into some of those harbours was lost through the railways getting flat rates or agreed rates, cutting out this trade and thereby ruining the harbours, the appeal could come direct from the coastal trade itself. If my supposition on that point is correct, I hope that the Minister may mention it when he replies.
I have nothing more to say except that I join in the general chorus of praise about the Committee. Not having had much experience of committees, I usually sit in the background and write letters, but in this particular Committee the various points were of absorbing interest to most of us. I think that practically everyone on the Committee who had Amendments had them well thrashed out and discussed, and the Minister gave very fair and, if not always satisfactory, at least ample answers to everything we had to say. I join with my hon. Friend who spoke last in saying that we certainly cannot consider the Bill satisfactory, if it is to be considered final, as settling everything for ever. But f think it is a serious attempt to regulate traffic,
and inasmuch as the Bill does now what it did not do before, namely, include some regularisation of the coastal shipping, I give it my hearty support.

10.24 p.m.

Colonel GOODMAN: As a member of Standing Committee A which has had the duty of considering the provisions of this Bill in detail, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Transport on the accomplishment of what I consider to be a very difficult task. I recollect that a few months ago we were in the throes of an acrimonious controversy about road versus rail traffic. The noise of the warfare of words has died away, I am glad to say, and to-day we are at the final stage of passing through this House a Road and Rail Traffic Bill. The Title of the Measure seems to indicate most happily the aim which the Committee has had in its consideration of the provisions of the Bill. We are not now considering how best to settle the controversy, but we are presenting to the House for its final decision a Measure for the co-ordination of road and rail traffic.
It seemed to me at the outset that we had two problems to consider. The first was to bring into association the two systems, and to recognise, in relation to rail transport, the new conditions which it now has to face. The second was that we had to formulate a code of road transport and to provide regulations to fit the needs of the conditions of carrying freight by road.
Anyone who has studied the working of road transport will admit that it has been suffering from the vagaries of adolescence, and I think this Bill will provide a very good corrective. Our first purpose of adjusting the relations between road and rail transport has been achieved, and, I think, by provisions to which no one can reasonably take exception. We recognise that the railways no longer possess the monopoly of freight carrying, and in consequence the restrictions and limitations which had been placed upon them, although suitable for a monopoly, no longer apply. They may now agree with a trader to carry at special rates on the best terms obtainable, and are no longer required to quote flat rates which are available to everyone. Thus we have given the railways
an opportunity to meet competition from road transport. In that way equilibrium has been restored between road and rail. At the same time the element of competition has been maintained. Whether the railways will be able to maintain their fair share of freight. carrying now depends on their efficiency as carriers. One thing is certain, and that is that they will no longer have cause to complain that they are handicapped in getting freights by the operation of limitations and restrictions which are out of date according to modern lights.
I should like to turn for a few minutes to consider the Bill in relation to the regulation of road transport. This is a service which has extended and developed enormously during the last few years. The extent of the development can only be fully appreciated by those who motor over our arterial roads, especially at night. Regulation in the interests of transport owners certainly has been long overdue. There are those who have taken the road transport business very seriously, who have expended huge sums of money in the purchase of vehicles, in maintaining them in good condition and in providing regular services. They have not been exempt from competition, nor will they be exempt from it in future, either from the railways or from other road users, according to the provisions of this Bill, but the competition that they will have to meet will be fair. The system of licensing for such classes of vehicles as are used to maintain regular services will prevent pirates from jumping in on favourable occasions and skimming the cream off the traffic and then disappearing from the roads during the leaner periods when the volume of traffic is far less to handle.
If we are to have an efficient road service, maintained in good condition, paying fair wages, seeing that the drivers are not called upon to work unreasonable hours, and that we shall have well-conditioned vehicles on the road, this Bill is necessary. It seems to me to provide the means of granting facilities in any area where one desires to have goods transported by road, and at the same time it keeps the door open to that fair competition which ensures reasonable traffic rates. The "C" licence, granted to firms who use their vehicles for their own trade-carrying, will be issued under normal con-
ditions without any trouble whatever, because the question of facilities does not arise. It is fully recognised that the owners of such vehicles have full right to use their vehicles for their own trade carrying purposes.
A more difficult problem is presented by those firms who use their vehicles not solely for their own trade purposes, and in the case of those vehicles which carry goods for other firms the service is very much akin to that of the regular road haulers. The licence which is issued to these owners of vehicles to carry return loads is admittedly a, cross-breed between an "A" and a "C" licence, since there is both carriage for hire and reward and carriage for own trade purposes. It seems to me that there is some danger of an excessive use of these vehicles for carriage for hire or reward; and it is possible that an excessive use will disturb the regulated facilities in an area which is working under conditions attaching to an "A" licence. But I believe that that danger is avoided by the provision in the Bill for a yearly renewal. That provides ample opportunity for restricting the use of "B" licences, and of reviewing the facilities of that particular area, and in that case the use or excessive use of "B" class vehicles for' hire or reward would not have any great effect on the regulated road haulers who are working under an "A" licence.
In addition to the co-ordination of traffic services which the licence system provides, it will also have other equally important effects on the efficiency of road services. I refer to the security conditions contained in the provisions of the Bill. They require licensed vehicles to be kept in a fit and serviceable condition; limits of speed and weight and loading have also to be observed; the hours of continuous duty in which drivers may be employed are subject to control; and records of hours worked, speed and loads, must be kept. I can see no objection to these provisions. Ill-conditioned vehicles, vehicles travelling beyond the speed limit, vehicles over-weighted and badly loaded, and vehicles in charge of tired drivers, are beyond doubt a menace to other road users and pedestrians. Road transport has been too long unregulated, and there was more than a danger that this growing industry might fall into disrepute. I think that the
Bill will do much to put it on a satisfactory footing, and I am glad to have been associated with the Committee that has had the framing of the Bill.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I am glad to have an: opportunity of saying a word on the last stages of this Bill. In my view this is one of the most ill-digested pieces of legislation that has ever reached this stage in this House. It is a highly technical, complicated and far-reaching Measure, and, having regard to the great potentialities for mischief inherent in it, it should, in my humble view, have received much more careful and minute examination than has been accorded to it. It is true that there have been many sittings in the Committee stage, but they were not by any means sufficient to thoroughly consider a Bill of this description.
On Second Reading I expressed the hope that the Committee would take this Bill and cut its dirty throat upstairs. The Committee has not even succeeded in washing its neck. That was largely been due to the consummate skill and determination with which the Minister of Transport has resisted almost every Amendment to the Bill. He has displayed stone-walling ability of no mean order, and I think he would be the first to acknowledge that he has not been subject to any body-line bowling. Indeed those Members of the Committee who were opposed to much that it contained in the Bill refrained from utilising what I believe is a legitimate Parliamentary-weapon, the weapon of obstruction. Had it been otherwise, I do not think the-Minister would have been in the happy position of seeing 'this child of his receiving its Third Reading to-night.
While paying tribute to the Minister's undoubted skill, and while I do not desire in any degree to fix responsibility on the hon. Gentleman, I do want to take-this opportunity of deploring the-objectionable practice which seems to be growing up, of making the test of a Minister's capacity the rapidity with which he is able to carry a given piece of legislation through all its stages to the Statute Book. That is a practice which is very much to be deprecated, and it is causing grave anxiety to judicial authorities throughout the country. Surely the proper consideration of a Bill
is of much more importance than the mere date of its passing. With the greater portion of the Bill I find myself in entire disagreement. I have never shared the view which appears to have been taken by the Minister, that the Bill can be regarded as a perfect specimen of the draftsman's art, and that its precise terms should be regarded as sacroscant. On the contrary, I am convinced that its provisions will cause grave harm and mischief to the trade and industry of the country, and that Members of this House will only realise that in one or two years' time, when they are inundated with urgent appeals from their constituents who happen to be road hauliers to enable them to have many of their grievances redressed. It will then be too late; the mischief will then have been done.
I have endeavoured to indicate that I am utterly opposed to many of the features of this Bill, and in particular to the restrictive nature of its provisions. There are some especially objectionable provisions. The Bill creates innumerable new crimes, and I can almost foresee an enlarged addition of Stone's Justices' Manual to contain references to it. The Bill perpetuates the obnoxious system of legislation by reference and places immense additional powers in the hands of the Departments. It sets up a new and complicated system of licensing, which in my view will be most irritating and certainly unhelpful to the road transport industry, which is the handmaiden of general trade and industry. Moreover—and this is a very regrettable feature of the Bill—it gives power to licensing authorities to dispense their judgments behind closed doors where the light of publicity cannot penetrate and I have very grave misgivings as to the large amount of dissatisfaction and sense of grievance which this provision will, in many cases, create.
The ex-Solicitor-General speaking on the Report stage yesterday said the Bill would prove to be the opening of a paradise for lawyers. It will indeed be a veritable godsend to the legal profession. Its provisions are so complex that the road haulier who does not enlist legal aid will be a fool. It may well be asked, why should I as a lawyer grumble about a Bill of this nature. Great though may be my concern for the well-being of the
members of my profession, that concern is outweighed by my serious apprehension and anxiety at the ever-increasing restrictions and regulations which are shackling and hampering us as a people and gradually but all too surely filching away our liberties. I regard the Bill as thoroughly vicious and as a mischievous interference with legitimate interests. Safety on the road, limitations on the loads of vehicles and their use on the roads—all those matters could easily have been seen to without setting up this elaborate machinery for crushing the competitors of the railway companies.
I cannot remember now how many scores of millions of pounds have been spent in recent years on the construction of roads in this country. Now, when all that money has been spent, we are setting up this elaborate machinery to restrict the number of vehicles using those roads. It would almost appear as though the money had been employed in a merely wasteful endeavour to cater for a form of transport which the present Government seems to regard as an improper use of the roads. No doubt the railway companies in connection with this Bill will follow the practice which they have followed under the Act of 1930 and will oppose every application for a licence under this Measure. If that is done, thousands of pounds of the railway shareholders' money will be squandered, and I suggest to those who have any influence with the railway companies that that money might be more usefully employed in securing a higher degree of efficiency on the railways which is by far a better and a more legitimate way of meeting the competition of road transport.

10.45 p.m.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: In contradistinction to the last orator, I rise to give my entire blessing to this Bill. I speak mainly for pedestrians and dwellers in cities, and I am bound to say that nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see in this Bill a number of new penalties invented. The reason is that new crimes have been pervading the whole country in the direction of the misuse of motor traffic, and it is necessary to deal with them severely. Just as new legislation is due at present against the highway robber and the bag-snatcher, so there is a great deal of legislation long overdue
against the misuser of our public roads. The most precious parts of this Bill are those Clauses called "Miscellaneous." I see there an enormous number of useful indications of the way in which the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill intends to treat motor traffic. I see possibilities of restricting rates in certain places, of prohibiting certain routes for certain sorts of vehicles, and of making it possible to secure quiet in certain districts. Of course, it is not an ideal Bill, but it puts an end to the chaos and misuse of the roads by what has been growing to be an anarchical oligarchy; and, therefore, I bless the Bill for what it does, and I sincerely trust it will be very carefully and rigidly administered.

10.47 p.m.

Sir JOHN GANZONI: I should not be expected to be, and shall not be, found among supporters of the Amendment so reasonably moved by the hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite, an Amendment which seeks to apply to this Bill and to transport generally, both on the ground and in the air, and underground as well, the panacea or cure-all of nationalisation, which is so popular with hon. Members opposite, a panacea rather unlike other cure-alls in this respect, that it cannot possibly produce in its advertisements any of those scores of alleged unsolicited testimonials which are generally brought forward:to back up cure-alls of another kind. I am sure that the wiser and more discreet of hon. and right hon. Members opposite would be exceedingly careful not to produce in this case any such testimonials, solicited or unsolicited, inasmuch as if they did, they know perfectly well that it would generally prove that wherever their particular panacea has been applied, it has either been very damaging or in some cases entirely fatal.
I hope I have made my position towards the Amendment and the Third Reading clear. The fact remains that it must not he taken that I approve of everything in the Bill. I do not say that I am unique in that respect, for probably a large number of Members in all quarters hold the same view, but I think the Bill has been enormously improved since the beginning, due to the sweet reasonableness of the Minister in charge and, no doubt, to the immense amount of time and trouble that have been spent upon it. When it was first printed and its pro-
visions became known in the country, there were a good many small men in particular who were very much afraid of the effect that the limitation of the free competition that hitherto existed might have upon their own interests. I do not mean for a moment small men who are themselves specially engaged in the transport industry by road. I mean the small men in business, like the corn merchants, the agricultural merchants, and other small traders, who have benefited to a great extent by the competition which has hitherto gone on and who were filled with apprehensions, well founded or otherwise, as to what the results of the provisions of this Bill might mean for them. I know that a good deal has been done for their protection, particularly in the very long Clause 29, now re-numbered Clause 30. I hope that in the case of this Bill, which will undoubtedly obtain the Third Reading, the Government will give even more than their usual after-service. Many of these small men have had their interests protected to a certain extent, but of course apprehensions of this kind die very hard. There is no doubt that small men in this country and in other countries have in recent years seen their interests subordinated to those of larger bodies. We cannot therefore blame them for being somewhat fearful on this occasion.
There was one particular body which appealed to me, and which made a great deal of impression on me by their arguments. They were removal contractors, who not only had reason to be afraid of this Bill but who have also had a very heavy blow from the Budget this year. The average mileages, which were used as the basis for increasing the licence duties of certain road vehicles, were quite three times their average mileage. They are not like the ordinary road haulers. They use their motor vehicles not for running enormous distances but to take people's furniture distances of half-a-mile or a, mile or perhaps five miles. They have not only had these new heavy duties under the Budget, but they feared that the additional restrictions upon them in this Bill would operate to their disadvantage. This evening one of the points they were particularly worried about has been conceded to them by our genial and wise Minister. They were very rout afraid of their men being stopped on the road and examined, but that has been dropped.
There are provisions in this Bill that may create difficulties in the future which not all the combined wisdom in all quarters of this House can foresee at present. It:s for that reason that, realising the Bill will pass this House and become law at no distant date, I appeal to the Government that an eye may be kept upon these matters and that the Transport Advisory Council and the Ministry may watch the effect of these drastic and somewhat revolutionary proposals, and see that what was intended to be a boom to all classes of the community may not operate in an unfair and harassing manner against certain classes and certain individuals.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Captain Margesson.)

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

10.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORS: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
In view of the rather voluminous nature of these Amendments, I hope that the House will give me a minute to explain them. When the Bill was in Committee, owing to a compromise which had been made, certain Amendments were carried through and accepted very quickly, and the Bill was left in a somewhat untidy condition. Unfortunately, the time was very short between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and therefore the Government had not time to do the necessary tidying up. The Measure went to another place, and the Government took the opportunity of making the Bill a more workable and efficient instrument. In the other place there were only two types of Amendments introduced, namely, those by the Government which were of a purely drafting nature, and two or three slight amendments to meet the representations of the butchers. There is nothing that disturbs the substance of the Bill.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Resolved,
That the Petition of Katherine Mary Pain, praying for the redress of her grievances, which was presented on 6th March, be printed with the Votes."—[Mr. Annesley Somerville.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

TRADE AND COMMERCE (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I make no apology, even at this hour, for raising the question of Japanese competition, because it is of such vital importance to the British Empire as a whole as well as in particular to the Colonies. On Friday last the Secretary of State for the Colonies was making a survey of the work under his administration, and I think I am within the recollection of the House when I say that his survey occupied one hour and a-half, and during that hour and a-half he did not utter one single word with regard to that competition which is invading the Colonies and other countries in the form of an economic menace unknown in the history of this land. I do not intend to take up very much time, because there are a number of hon. Members who desire to speak on this subject, and I hope they will give ample time for the Minister to make his reply.
I could deal with various manufactured articles which are being exported from Japan to the various countries in the British Empire, but for the purpose of my case I desire to deal with two industries, the silk industry and the cotton industry; and I want the Minister to say in his reply what he is going to do about it, what action of an effective character the Government are going to take, and when they propose to deal with the matter. Japanese competition in the silk and in the cotton industry is a matter of extreme urgency. Our difficulty is that very few people outside the industries concerned recognise it. It is imperative that something should be done without delay if incalculable injury to those industries is to be avoided.
I do not want to worry the House with a lot of figures, but it is impossible for me to put up, as I am proposing to do, an unassailable case without boring hon. Members with some figures showing how indisputable are the facts. The position in the silk industry is shown generally by the decline in the world exports of British silk and the expansion of Japanese world exports of silk in the last two years. Between 1930 and 1932 British exports of rayon piece goods to all parts of the world, including Empire markets, fell by over 20 per cent., and in the same period the Japanese exports increased by over 80 per cent. This is most disquieting penetration by Japan, and it is not only continuing, but it is increasing. Month by month it becomes more serious. Let, me illustrate this from the home market. In 1931, the export of Japanese rayon tissues to this country amounted, in round figures, to 18,000 square yards, and in the first half of 1932 the Japanese export was 16,000 square yards. In the second half of that year it had expanded to 240,000 square yards, a total of 256,000 square yards for 1932. I wish to compare that with the first three months of this year, when Japanese exports of rayon tissue to this country were not less than 150,000 square yards, equal to 600,000 square yards a year, and more than 33 times the amount exported here in 1931.
In Empire countries, the same alarming results are shown. In 1930, Japanese exports of rayon tissue to the principal Empire markets was 46,000,000 square yards. In 1932 they were 71,000,000 square yards. In many of the Colonial markets Japan is doing a big and increasing trade, and buying practically nothing in return. For instance, last year Japan sold goods to the value of nearly £300,000 to Jamaica, but Jamaica sold to Japan goods only to the value of £360. Much damage is being done to British manufacturers by this Japanese competition in silk goods which are exact copies of some of the British cloths in quality, colour and design. My constituency is a heavy sufferer from this competition, because the spun silk yarns which are made in certain districts of Yorkshire for this style of cloth are no longer in demand.
I want to mention a few figures in regard to cotton. The cotton industry is equally hard hit. The latest official,
comparative figures of British and Japanese exports show that Japan is advancing enormously, while we have lost, and are still losing, ground. In January, 1932, we exported a total of 179,000,000 square yards and Japan 89,000,000 square yards, but in October, 1932, our exports had dropped to only 138,000,000 square yards, but Japan's had increased to 200,000,000 square yards. In British Empire markets everywhere, the same sorry tale must be told. While Japan is encroaching greatly on British markets, our share of the import trade with Japan has fallen steadily. Two of our most valuable industries are being killed, and there is nothing slow about the process; it is proceeding apace. The latest report of the Department of Overseas Trade in this matter contains this arresting passage:
These successes of Japan have been obtained by a deadly combination of low wages, good workmanship and favourable exchanges. Japan offers less and less prospect as a market for the manufactured goods of other countries. She is now established as one of the most serious competitors of those countries.
I ask the Minister: What are we going to do, not in six months' time, not in 12 months' time, but now? I most urgently ask the Government to act soon in defence of the British industries concerned. Time is against us; it is on the side of Japan. She is digging herself in commercially all over the world. If we delay too long, we shall never be able to recover the enormous ground that we have lost.
I think I have quoted sufficient facts to put up an unassailable case, which I trust will prove conclusively, not only to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but to the Government generally, that some action—and effective action—has got to be taken at once. Conversations and conferences may be all right, but in the meantime our trade is being taken away from us in the foreign markets of the world, our manufacturers are ceasing to employ the number of people that they ordinarily would employ; and, if it is the desire of the Government to decrease unemployment as speedily as possible, and to study the interests of this country and of the British Empire in accordance with the terms of reciprocal trade which were foreshadowed by the Ottawa Agreements, I sincerely hope that they will take this menace of Japanese competition seriously to heart, and will do something effectively to stop it.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the exigencies of Parliamentary procedure make it necessary for us to deal with this extraordinarily important subject at this late hour of the night. It is because I recognise the exigencies of that procedure, and the necessity of giving ample time to the Minister to reply, that I propose to be extremely brief. Until recent years, mankind has accepted it as a premise and an axiom that cheaper costs of production, economies which can be made in production in general, must in the long run react to the benefit of mankind, to the progress of mankind, and so, finally, must lead to a higher standard of living throughout all the communities of the world. But, since the War, the inventive faculties of the West have been allied to the lower material requirements of the East, and we have seen, as a result of that combination, production at a hitherto undreamt-of low level of costs.
The whole progress of what one might describe as the old commercial countries is now in jeopardy. There is hardly a, commercial enterprise in the Western world which does not tremble at, the prospect of unrestricted Japanese competition. The problem is one of vast magnitude, and, though one realises the great importance of the office of my right hon. Friend, I do not think he will disagree with me when I say that we cannot expect the Secretary of State for the Colonies to solve, of his own power and his own volition, this very grave problem. We appreciate very much his attitude in saying that, as far as he is concerned, he will do what lies within his power to bring the policy of the Colonies into line with such a policy as may be indicated by the Board of Trade as in the best interests of this country. That is reasonable and fair, because it is indeed a problem of very great magnitude, and one which cannot be dealt with in any piecemeal fashion.
As regards our own country, it necessitates our looking at the situation from the point of view of the home market, of the neutral markets of the world, of the Dominion markets, and of the markets of the Colonies. But we do ask the assistance of my right hon. Friend, as representing the Colonies, in respect of those aspects of the problem over which, in our view, he has control,
and in respect of which we believe he can be helpful. I should like to refer to one specific case, that of Ceylon, in which we feel the Secretary of State could, within the ambit of his responsibility, be more helpful in the situation that exists. The Ottawa Agreement indicated that we were to get reciprocal advantages from Ceylon. We were to give Ceylon definite advantages in respect of goods that we purchase and Ceylon in return was to give us advantages. The constitution of Ceylon was laid down by the late Labour Government. It is full of paper safeguards and for that reason is an interesting example to those who are about to institute a new constitution for India. That constitution makes it possible for the Governor to have overriding powers in certain circumstances. Clause 22 states:
If the Government should consider it of paramount importance in the public interest that any Bill which the Council is empowered to pass should have effect, the Governor may declare that any such Bill should have effect as if it had been passed by the Council.
This position of the power of the Governor to override the constitution in certain circumstances has been used. My right hon. Friend may say that the power that lie holds under the Constitution is of such a character that it is inadvisable in present circumstances to use it. What is understood by the words "paramount importance," has been decided in more than one case. If in cases where the authority of civil servants is in question it is within the power of the Secretary of State to overrule the Council of State, in my view, when a question of Government policy, a question involving the livelihood of large numbers of our fellow countrymen, is as stake, he is justified in maintaining that a position of paramount importance has arisen. I imagine the difficulties of the Secretary of State, but he must also recognise the difficulties under which we, who represent industrial constituencies in the North labour. We are anxious to help him in these difficult times as much as we can, but it is not a fair proposition to ask us continuously to refrain from bringing to the attention of the House and the country these very difficult problems if in fact we are not going to get a solution. It may be that no solution is possible but it is far better that. the country should
know that no solution is possible than that we should remain under any misapprehension. In these circumstances, I hope that it may be possible, while the Government are engaged in these world affairs, for them not to overlook the importance of this Empire economic unity. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give us some reassuring words as to the future prospects with regard to Japanese competition.

11.21 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman should raise this question at any time or place. I did not deal with it in what was a prolonged speech on the Estimates of my Department the other day because the President of the Board of Trade had only a short time before stated with precision exactly what negotiations he was undertaking, the scope of those negotiations and their object, and I had made a broadcast speech in which I dealt with this to the whole of the Colonial Empire. There were a number of other matters with which I had been specifically asked to deal. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that it is not primarily a matter for the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We must, on matters of trade, take the advice of the President of the Board of Trade. No one can certainly give better advice, and it would be very much out of place if I tried to conduct the trade policy of this country rather than the trade policy for the particular regions of the world for which I am responsible.
There is no difference of opinion in this matter. Japanese competition is extremely serious in every part of the world, and in this country also increasingly so. Another thing is clear, namely, that Japanese competition stands absolutely in a class by itself and has to be dealt with as a separate proposition. The question is quite distinct when you are faced with competition from France or America or other countries where we have preferences which give us a turn of the market, but which are inadequate in the case of Japanese competition. I have seen instances of artificial silk goods in which the difference of price ranges from 150 per cent. to 200 per cent. That is a wholly different proposition. What is more, it is unreasonable to ask the Colonial Empire to deal with it in any
other way. In the Colonial Empire preference has to come by good will. One has a certain authority, in certain cases; in other cases it rests entirely with the Colony itself, and no Secretary of State can force it through. It would therefore be impossible to ask them to put up duties to the extent of 200 per cent. against countries where that procedure was quite unnecessary and against countries to whom they sell an enormous quantity of goods.

Mr. LEVY: No.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not talking about Japan. I say that to ask the Colonies to put on a duty of 250 per cent. against other countries who trade very largely with them is quite unnecessary in order to give us a turn of the market. Therefore Japanese competition has to be dealt with as a separate proposition. That is exactly the way in which it is being dealt with. The President of the Board of Trade and I have had very close negotiations with the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and those interested in the trade. The President of the Board of Trade has begun negotiations with the Japanese Government. Negotiations will be conducted chiefly between the representatives of the trade interests who are the people most closely acquainted with all the details of the business in order to see if they can arrive at an agreement in regard to markets on terms satisfactory to ourselves. Those negotiations have been undertaken and will go forward. I sincerely hope that they will be successful. If they are not successful, the Colonial Empire will be prepared to take whatever steps are necessary in order to protect British interests. At the present time, as regards West Africa, at the request of the President of the Board of Trade I have withdrawn from the Anglo-Japanese Treaty in order to take Japan out of the ambit of the Anglo-French Convention, which the trading interests are very desirous of maintaining via-à-cis other countries.
Perhaps I might read a quotation from the broadcast speech which I made to the Colonial Empire, which puts the whole attitude of the Colonial Empire:
On the other hand, Japan buys very little from the Colonial Empire, whereas England buys much, and is stimulating her purchases by the preference. I know that I speak for a great body of public opinion
in the Colonial Empire when I say that we wish to secure to Britain, to whom we owe so much, a fair share in our Colonial markets. As you know, the President of the Board of Trade has begun negotiations with the Japanese Government. In the Colonies we are no less anxious than is industry in this country that those negotiations should succeed, and the President can feel that he has behind him a full measure of Colonial support. In this determination of Britain and the Colonies that they shall have a fair share in each other's markets there is nothing hostile to Japan. It is but business and common sense.
That represents the attitude not only official but non-official, throughout the Colonial Empire; that we should give the President of the Board of Trade in these negotiations every help we can.
As regards the question of Ceylon, the hon. Member asked whether Ceylon had fulfilled the whole of the Ottawa Agreement. Ceylon has not. With regard to the form of the Ottawa Agreement, while I negotiated on behalf of the whole Colonial Empire I was not able to bind the whole of the Colonial Empire. That
is the constitutional position. The form of the Ottawa 'Agreement was that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom undertook to invite certain dependencies to make certain changes in their customs tariffs. Although other Colonies have adopted the Ottawa Agreement, Ceylon has not. I much regret that it should not have done so. I think that Ceylon would be well advised to do so. I still hope that the Ottawa Agreement will be adopted by Ceylon to the full.
May I return to the broad issue? Japanese competition has to be dealt with effectively and as a separate proposition. The negotiations are in very able hands, and I hope that they will succeed. Any help that we can give to the President of the Board of Trade and those who are conducting these negotiations we must certainly give.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.